Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND

Accounts ordered,
of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1952–53, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st day of March, 1953, and (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.— [Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

National Service Men (Officers)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) why most of the National Service men who attain officer rank come from the South; and why it is considered by selection boards that Northerners are less suitable as officers;
(2) whether the views expressed at a recent command conference at Chester that the material for officers does not exist among Northerners represent War Office policy.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): It is a matter of fact and not policy that fewer officers come from the North of England than from the South. This has been so for a long time. As I have told the House on a number of occasions, I am trying to get more officers from the North.

Mr. Chetwynd: But the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question why. Also, is he aware that there is real feeling in the North that more attention is paid by the selection boards to the rather more sophisticated, smooth-tongued Southerners than to the more solid types which we have in the North, and that this is mainly due to the accent and industrial

background of the latter? Would the right hon. Gentleman make some comment?

Mr. Head: I do not want to start any North v. South controversy. The Territorial Associations and others have attended these boards and are satisfied that there is no partiality. If the hon. Gentleman would like to attend a board, I should be pleased to arrange it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Whilst wholeheartedly agreeing with my hon. Friend, may I ask the Minister if he is aware that the same position applies to walks of life other than the Army?

Mr. Vane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the county regiments from the North of England are the best in the Army?

Repatriated Prisoners, Korea (Ration Allowance)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will authorise a retrospective issue to prisoners repatriated from Korea of the ration allowance granted to a Service man when he cannot be fed by the Service.

Mr. Head: No, Sir.

Mr. Driberg: Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter sympathetically, bearing in mind two points: first, that these men did not receive Red Cross parcels, which are to some extent a substitute for ordinary rations in most modem wars; and, second, that this House presumably voted the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor money to pay for these chaps' meals—at least, does he remember ever telling us of any cut in Army catering requirements in respect of dinners for prisoners of war?

Mr. Head: No, these regulations have always been the same for prisoners, and when these men returned they were given 35 days' leave with double ration cards. I do not think that I could take this exceptional step.

Mr. Wigg: But surely the Minister has misunderstood the point? The regulations lay down that a man's rations follow his pay; that he is entitled either to rations or ration allowance. If these men were not fed and went through months of starvation, surely it is only common decency to give them the ration allowance?

Mr. Head: We have no evidence to show that these men were completely starved or did not get food. The North Koreans subscribed to the Geneva Convention but there have been cases in which the diet of prisoners has been inadequate. To institute what has been suggested would constitute a difficult precedent.

Compassionate Posting

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for War when the practice of compassionate postings was discontinued and why; and if he will try to get uniformity of practice with the other Service Departments.

Mr. Head: Compassionate posting was abolished in January, 1947, because so much of the Army was overseas. That is still so.

Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the Question, namely, will he try to get uniformity with other Service Departments, in that it must be the experience of many hon. Members, as it is mine, that negotiations with the War Office on this matter are much more difficult than negotiations with either the Air Force or the Navy?

Mr. Head: Our problem is much more difficult, because 80 per cent, of the fighting units of the British Army are overseas. Therefore, compassionate postings present a difficult problem, and we have the added problem, which does not obtain in the Navy or the Air Force, of wanting to avoid cross-posting between regiments.

Fighting Units (Percentage Overseas)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary for War what percentage of the Army's fighting units is now overseas.

Mr. Head: The answer is 80 per cent.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the recent speech by the Minister of Defence, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there must be something fundamentally wrong with the policy of the Government since it prevents him from establishing the strategic reserve about which the Minister of Defence has spoken?

Mr. Head: The main controlling factor here is represented by various things overseas over which neither the War Office nor, indeed, any Government can have absolute control.

Mr. Slater: In view of the discrimination referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), could the Minister say what percentage of those serving overseas come from the Durham Light Infantry and the Northumberland Fusiliers?

Mr. Head: Not without notice.

Bermuda Garrison

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service men will be included in the Bermuda garrison.

Mr. Head: About 100.

Mr. Wigg: Will the Minister please take steps to make the parents of these 100 men aware that they are doing their two years' military service to satisfy the whim of the Prime Minister that the flag should be shown?

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War the particular merits of the case which induced him to withdraw the Bermuda garrison and shortly afterwards to reinstate it.

Mr. Head: Our status in the Western Atlantic.

Mr. Bellenger: I have no doubt that it was a very pleasant one in which to serve, but nevertheless, there must have been very cogent reasons which induced the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw an old-established garrison like this and later, after the visit of the Prime Minister, to restore it. Does the Minister not understand that it gives the impression that the Prime Minister has had this garrison restarted purely for ceremonial purposes?

Mr. Head: The point about this decision is that just because one step has been taken it does not mean that no other step can be taken in the future. I am not one who believes that I am always right or that there are not a great many people who know better than I do.

Ashridge College (Courses)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War on how many occasions the Army has used the facilities of Ashridge (Bonar Law Memorial) College in the last five years; for what purposes; and what were the payments involved.

Mr. Head: Army students attended 111 courses and some £4,400 has been paid to the college. The courses were in the main concerned with resettlement and general topics of educational interest and value.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Secretary of State aware—I have no doubt he is—that the governing body of this college is nominated by the Conservative Party? May we therefore have an assurance that similar facilities are being used at colleges belonging to the Labour Party? If not, may we know why there is this political discrimination?

Mr. Head: There is no political discrimination in relation to this college. The best proof of that is that in 1950 the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) sent 420 students to the college and last year I sent 192.

Army Act (Amendment)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War how soon he expects to be in a position to bring forward legislation to amend the Army Act in the light of the recommendations already made by the Select Committee.

Mr. Head: After the final report of the Committee has been made to the House.

Mr. Swingler: May we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that he will include some Amendments to the Army Act this year so that there will be an opportunity, such as there was not last year, to discuss some of these recommendations when the Act is debated?

Mr. Head: I think that it is the unanimous opinion of the Committee that it would be unwise to introduce these measures piecemeal, and that we should await the full report.

Mr. Wigg: Is not the right hon. Gentleman taking on himself something with regard to which he cannot express an opinion? The question whether Amendments would be in order when we

debate the Army Act is not for him but for the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Head: Yes, indeed. That was not the impression that I wished to give. I thought that the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) was referring to the recommendations of the Select Committee. As to any other Amendments, that is not a matter for me, as the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) says.

Regular Personnel (Retirement and Discharge)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers and non-commissioned officers under 40 years of age, but excluding National Service men, have left the Army in each of the years 1951, 1952 and 1953.

Mr. Head: Our records show retirements and discharges at all ages and do not specify those under 40 years of age.

Vehicles (Standardisation)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made with the standardisation of vehicles.

Mr. Head: Good progress has been made in getting interchangeability of engine parts and components of wheeled combat vehicles and of components and bodies of general service vehicles.

Mr. Hall: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the desirability of speeding up the work of the Committee that is engaged on this task? Is he aware that it will not only help the supply and maintenance service but will also help him in his problem of pruning "the tail"?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir, I quite agree.

Detained Soldiers, Colchester

Mr. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service men are at present serving sentences of detention at the corrective training establishment at Colchester; how many entered Her Majesty's Forces more than two years ago, and how many commenced their National Service three or more years ago; and what is the weekly cost of maintaining a detained soldier in this establishment.

Mr. Head: One hundred and fifty-one, of whom 12 entered the Army between two and three years ago and 10 entered earlier. The weekly cost of maintaining a man in detention there is about £5.

Mr. Yates: At what point does the Minister consider it unwise or uneconomical to keep in the Forces men who are quite unsatisfactory, in view of the numbers not released although they have been in the Forces for four years or more? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has arrived when he should not retain National Service men beyond this period?

Mr. Head: We try to judge each case on its merits; but I would point out that those men who have been more than two or three years in the Army have nearly all been absent without leave for the greater part of the period.

Mr. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for War for how many hours daily soldiers serving periods of detention at Colchester corrective training establishment are kept locked up; for how many hours they are engaged in physical training and drill; what educational facilities are provided; and on what work of a corrective nature they are employed.

Mr. Head: Fifteen and a half hours. They do physical training for one hour and drill for two hours. Five Royal Army Educational Corps instructors carry out the educational programme. Other activities are similarly aimed at making the men better soldiers and citizens.

Mr. Yates: In view of the fact that these men, as the right hon. Gentleman says, are locked up for 15 hours or more, is not this position really totally unsatisfactory? Could not more staff be employed—I understand that these places are very much understaffed—to give more corrective training to prisoners? We shall otherwise turn them out bigger criminals than before.

Mr. Head: The expression "locked up" is slightly misleading. These men are in huts containing about 14 men. They can play games, read books and participate in other activities in the huts. But I agree with the hon. Member that, as in the case of civilian prisons, we would like more staff. We are trying to obtain them.

Royal Scots Fusiliers (Precedence)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War why the application to raise the precedence of the Royal Scots Fusiliers from the 21st to the 4th regiment of infantry has been rejected by the Army Council.

Mr. Head: Careful thought was given to this proposal, which raises a matter of principle. Many other regiments would be affected if it were agreed.

Mr. Wigg: Has not the right hon. Gentleman seen the aggressive and rude letter which was sent to the Colonel-in-Chief of this regiment? Surely it is up to him to institute or re-institute an inquiry to find out whether the allegations made in that letter have any substance.

Mr. Head: The letter concerned contained an extract from the regimental history of this regiment as issued to recruits. It said that it should have been the 6th,
but it has so long owned 21 that no other would now be acceptable; in fact most Fusiliers go through life persuaded that 21 is their lucky number. So may it always continue to be.

Sir T. Moore: Is it not historically accurate that the Royal Scots Fusiliers, with which I had the honour to serve, have the right and have earned the right to the fourth place in the line? Will my right hon. Friend receive representations on this very important matter?

Mr. Head: It is a very important matter, but also a highly complicated one. The present order has been good enough for some 250 years and it would be very unwise to tamper with it.

Mr. Wigg: Is the Prime Minister aware of the rude language used by a civilian official of the War Office to the Colonel-in-Chief of the regiment? If not, would the right hon. Gentleman inform the Prime Minister? Has the Minister himself seen the letter?

Mr. Head: I know of no rude language. But if the hon. Member would like to show me anything of that nature, I should certainly be interested to see it.

Clerical and Office Workers

Mr. Simmons: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers, non-commissioned officers and men, respectively, are employed on clerical duties or office work.

Mr. Head: Both soldiers and civilians are employed wholly or partly on a wide variety of jobs of this nature, so that it is not possible to produce comprehensive figures.

Mr. Simmons: Cannot the Minister bring us up-to-date on some of these questions? Surely he has been very evasive on questions of this kind about how and where troops are employed.

Mr. Head: It would be an immensely complicated task to circularise the whole Army to obtain the exact figures required by this Question.

Batmen and Waiters

Mr. Simmons: asked the Secretary of State for War what proportion of time is expended by batmen and waiters on military duties and their secondary employment, respectively.

Mr. Head: The amount of time spent on duties as batmen or waiters and on other military duties varies so much according to circumstances that I can give no useful proportional figure.

Mr. Simmons: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a little too much? Surely the Minister can tell us how much of these men's time is used on other than military duties. Is he aware that we pay the piper and we have the right to call the tune? We have a right to know how they are employed.

Mr. Head: It is about as difficult to supply this information as it would be if the hon. Member asked me how much time hon. Members spent in their con stituencies and how much in this House. It would need a great deal of research.

Mr. Simmons: asked the Secretary of State for War what rank an officer must attain to become entitled to the service of a batman or to share the service of a batman.

Mr. Head: Where practicable, all officers who are accommodated get the services of a batman or share such services.

Mr. Simmons: Does that mean that even a "one pip" gets a batman, and does the right hon. Gentleman include cadets?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. He gets one quarter of a batman.

Territorial Army (Training)

Mr. Neave: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Territorial units had their fortnight's annual camp outside the United Kingdom in 1951, 1952 and 1953; and the policy of his Department with respect to the future training of Territorials abroad.

Mr. Head: None, Sir. But two airborne units took part in manoeuvres in Germany. The training of the Territorial Army is carried out in this country, except for a limited number of individuals whose training can best be done on the Continent. Some 2,000 members of the Army Emergency Reserve trained in Germany last year.

Mr. Neave: Would my right hon. Friend extend this training as much as he possibly can so that Territorials of all ranks may get some experience of international military training?

Mr. Head: There is a great deal to be said for that, but the difficulty is, first, the limited period of a fortnight and, second, the expense of moving large numbers of troops.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Would my right hon. Friend consider allowing Territorial officers to attend exercises in Germany during their period of training so that they may be accustomed to territory over which they may have to fight?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir, I will consider that.

Mr. Neave: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make further facilities available to Territorials for the study of modern languages in the course of their training.

Mr. Head: I am keeping a careful watch on the numbers of interpreters and linguists needed both by the Regular and Territorial Armies on mobilisation, and I do not think that further facilities for the Territorial Army are justified in present circumstances.

Mr. Neave: Will my right hon. Friend encourage such training a little more than at present with a view to creating suitable military intelligence staffs for the future?

Mr. Head: We keep a very careful account of all officers who have language skills and who might make interpreters. But there are only 15 days in which the Territorials may train, and I do not think we should be justified in starting courses of study during that time.

Mr. Woodbum: Is it not the case that the drill sergeant instructs all recruits in new languages?

F.N. and E.M.2 Rifles (Trial Results)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for War on what technical grounds the Director General of Artillery disagreed with the first results of the comparative trials between the Belgian F.N. rifle and the British E.M.2 rifle held in 1951.

Mr. Head: This officer seems to have based his disagreement with the interpretation of the trial results in 1951 on a different assessment of about 20 technical factors involved.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not a fact that the conditions under which these trials were set were afterwards discovered to be founded on an error? Would it not have been more candid of the Secretary of State, when he told us in the debate that the trials showed practically no difference between the two rifles, to have explained that there were a number of technical points in which the trials were set wrongly and that when this was found out it showed that the British rifle was far better than the Belgian rifle? Does it not also show that the celebrated telegram, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred rather disgracefully at the end of his speech, had no relevance whatever because at that time the final trials had not taken place and we did not know that the British rifle was very much better?

Mr. Head: I think the hon. Member is sticking to his gun in a rather undue way. These trials were carried out absolutely neutrally by a body of expert opinion and the report was made. The

Director General of Artillery had a perfect right to express an opinion but he was not present at the trials. His opinion does not alter the findings of the trials.

Mr. Strachey: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Army Council, which, after all, is qualified to judge, accepted the judgment of the Director General of Artillery.

Mr. Head: No, Sir.

Mr. Strachey: It did—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could not this be settled by a duel between the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend, arranged for both rifles to go off simultaneously, to the satisfaction of the House?

Mr. Head: I take it that where military matters are concerned the hon. Member represents the big bore.

Church Attendance and Parades

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent church parades continue as part of the Army routine at home stations; and approximately the percentage of men who voluntarily attend church worship.

Mr. Head: Church attendance is voluntary but parades in connection with a religious service are held on ceremonial occasions of national or local importance under the authority of a general officer commanding-in-chief. Figures of attendance are not kept.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the normal procedure that no compulsion is used to ensure that men attend church parades?

Mr. Head: Except for the occasions I have mentioned, there is no compulsion to attend church.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Furniture Industry (Standards)

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Furniture Development Council was formed by his Department in 1949 to implement the proposals made in the working party report by the development and consumer protection provisions of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, including the establishment of


an independent testing authority for devising standard performance tests and for testing manufacturers' products to ensure that they conform; that excellent work has been done in this connection but that the industry itself has not given the support and encouragement expected to the Furniture Development Council; and if. therefore, he will make a statement upon Us future position and work.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): The purposes for which the Furniture Development Council was established are laid down in the Second Schedule of the Furniture Industry Development Council Order, S.I. 2774 of 1948. I agree that the Council has done much useful work and has contributed greatly to the working out of the B.S.I. performance standards. A considerable and increasing number of firms are using its services, although I understand that there is criticism in some quarters. The Council publishes an annual report of its activities and no occasion has arisen for my right hon. Friend to make a fresh statement.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware of the great satisfaction which hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel that he has been able so to praise the work of the Furniture Development Council? May I also ask if he is aware that the London and South-Eastern Furniture Manufacturers' Association recently demanded the abolition of this Council? Can he give the House an assurance, in view of his commendation, that no notice will be taken of that recommendation?

Mr. Strauss: I think I need only add that no representation has been made about the Council to the Board of Trade since the last statutory review.

Sir V. Raikes: Arising out of the answer, is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, quite apart from the fact that greater use is being made of the services of the Council by employers, if qualified technicians could also be provided by the Council that would lead to even greater use of its services by those concerned?

Mr. Strauss: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, in view of all the

loopholes that are available and the criticism directed against the scheme, it would be very much better to bring back the Utility stamp? Will he consider reintroducing Utility furniture?

Mr. Strauss: I think that the hon. Lady is asking a supplementary question on the wrong Question.

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the British Furniture Trade Confederation has issued a leaflet, "Setting a Standard," and that in it a detailed analysis is made as to why every manufacturer should support the British Standards Institution Kite mark scheme for furniture; that the National Union of Furniture Trade Operatives welcomes the pamphlet, but that some employers are refusing to use the Kite mark; and, as such an attitude is in direct contradiction to the pledges given by the Government on behalf of the industry to hon. Members on 21st January, 1953, if he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Strauss: My right hon. Friend welcomes the support given to the scheme by the trade interests who have co-operated in the publication of this leaflet.
Many manufacturers have applied for licences to use the Kite mark but the adoption of the scheme is voluntary. Her Majesty's Government have never given a pledge that all manufacturers would apply the Kite mark, but they hope that the value of the mark will become more widely known and appreciated.

Miss Burton: With regard to the last part of the Question, is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend some time ago said that the Government were considering making a bigger grant to the British Standards Institution to publicise the Kite mark? May we take it that he is giving consideration to that?

Mr. Strauss: I am afraid that is quite a different question, and I should not like my remarks to be interpreted in one way or the other in relation to that question.

Mr. Porter: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the adoption of the Kite mark would not only guarantee the quality of the goods but would also guarantee the conditions under which men


and women working in the industry were employed? For that reason, if for no other, will he use his further efforts in order to make the introduction of the Kite mark universal in the trade?

Mr. Strauss: No, it must remain entirely voluntary, but how far it is adopted will, in my opinion, depend on what the public wants.

Mr. John Hall: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that manufacturers of two-thirds of the cabinet goods already use the Kite mark?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, that is quite accurate.

Worcester Buildings Co. (London), Ltd.

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet decided to appoint an inspector under Section 165 (b) of the Companies Act, 1948, to investigate the transaction of the transfer last December of the freehold of the Berkeley Hotel to a new company, the Worcester Buildings Co. (London), Ltd.; whether he has now considered and will publish the observations from the Savoy Hotel directors on this transaction; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received the observations of the Savoy directors with regard to the transfer last December of the Berkeley Hotel to the Worcester Buildings Company (London) Limited.

Mr. H. Strauss: The Secretary of the Savoy Hotel Limited has informed my right hon. Friend that the observations of the directors are being prepared and that he may expect to receive them in the course of a week or so.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister say why it has taken him so long to reach a decision on this matter whereas he quite rightly acquiesced speedily in the request of the Savoy directors for an inquiry into the manipulations of Samuels and company? Will he give a guarantee that when this report, or letter or document is received from the Savoy directors, he will make a statement on the matter?

Mr. Strauss: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The other

inquiry was under a totally different section of the Act and quite different considerations apply. There has been no undue delay on the part of the directors in answering the request for observations which my right hon. Friend made.

Consumer Goods Exports (Argentine)

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, though licences have been issued by the Argentine Government for the importation of £3,000,000 consumer goods from the United Kingdom, these licences are valueless unless they are supported by letters of credit; how many letters of credit have been granted; and how many firm orders have been received under the 1953 Anglo-Argentine trade agreement.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): No, Sir. The Argentine decree of June, 1952, under which goods could not be cleared through the Customs unless they were covered by a letter of credit was cancelled in September, 1953, with effect from 1st September, 1952. This requirement was exceptional and licences issued against the £3 million list agreed in April, 1953, will have guaranteed the provision of the necessary foreign exchange. It is not possible to identify the specific orders which have resulted from the trade agreement.

Mr. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these licences are only provisional for 45 days, and that in the case of machine tool orders they have also to get another licence from the Ministry of Industry and Commerce? Can he assure us that these further licences are being granted so that the trade may flow, as promised?

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend will agree that it is extraordinarily difficult to link orders and deliveries specifically with the granting of licences. We are watching the position very carefully and I believe that trade will flow. It is flowing now to the extent of the licences actually given.

Contracts, Moscow

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade to make a further statement on the latest reports he has


received about the British trade negotiations in Moscow.

Mr. Grimond: asked the President of the Board of Trade what further information he has as to the value or nature of the goods, recently the subject of a trade agreement in Moscow, for which export licences may be refused.

Mr. Amory: My right hon. Friend and I have now met a number of the businessmen who have recently visited Moscow. I understand that they have signed contracts worth about £16 million and are pursuing other important inquiries. Of the contracts signed, approval has already been given for the export of trawlers valued at approximately £6 million.
Some of the other contracts include items which would appear to be on the strategic control lists and need further consideration; but on the basis of information already available, I would judge that at least half of these contracts will be permissible.

Mr. Osbome: May I ask two questions? Could my right hon. Friend say whether export licences will be granted for the £3½ million of firm orders which have been received for machine tools which, if not supplied by this country, will be supplied by Sweden and Switzerland? Can he, secondly, assure the House that export licences will be granted for the £1 million of diesel engines, and that the export of these will be increased rapidly, otherwise they will be supplied from Germany? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that export licences will be granted in respect of those two groups?

Mr. Amory: Machine tools come into the category which I have mentioned, where some of them appear to be on the strategic control lists. Further consideration is, therefore, to be given to them. We are awaiting the exact specifications from the manufacturers as to the particular machine tools. I think the same thing may apply to diesel equipment, although I hope that in a substantial proportion of the cases it may be found to be all right. The examination is to take place at the earliest possible moment, and I am afraid the answer will depend on the exact specifications of the goods which have been ordered.

Mr. Grimond: While welcoming the success of this mission, may I follow up the questions already put to the Minister? Can he say what guarantee there is that if we refuse export licences for these goods, other Western nations will not grant export licences, so that we shall lose very important business?

Mr. Amory: As the hon. Member knows, the embargo list is agreed on the recommendation of the Consultative Group, which includes most of the nations of Western Europe and Canada and the United States. We have no reason to believe that any of the member nations of the Consultative Group is likely to do otherwise than carry out the agreement into which it has entered.

Mr. Nicholson: Regarding the embargo group, is the theory behind the agreement the theory that Western nations themselves need those machine tools or is it that the selling of them to a potential enemy would be dangerous?

Mr. Amory: The basic principal behind the agreement, of course, is to identify and separate items which will contribute directly to military potential. It is a most difficult matter.

Mr. Pannell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a great deal of muddle behind his answer? Sewing machines could be instruments of war, as could lathes or boring machines, and they could also be used for peaceful ends. What we want is a complete reclassification.

Mr. Amory: I do not disagree with what the hon. Member has said. It is extraordinarily difficult to decide what is an instrument of military potential and what is not, because these machines have common uses. All I can say is that these very difficult matters are under frequent, almost continuous, consideration in the Group. I am sure the hon. Member will agree that we must move there in co-operation with other nations.

Mr. Jay: Could the Minister say whether Western Germany is a member of the Consultative Group?

Hon. Members: And Denmark?

Mr. Amory: Yes, both those countries are working in consultation with us.

Electrical Equipment (U.S.A. Contracts and Tenders)

Mr. Grimond: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the value of contracts placed with British manufacturers in the last year for the supply of equipment to electrical schemes in the United States of America; and the value of the tenders which were rejected although the lowest submitted.

Mr. Amory: According to my information, which may be incomplete, British firms secured contracts during 1953 worth about 6,900,000 dollars for the supply of equipment to electrical schemes in the United States.
I am aware of two cases where fully compliant British bids, although the lowest, were rejected. One of these was the tender of approximately 4·4 million dollars for four generators for the Chief Joseph Dam, where all bids were rejected in the circumstances described in my right hon. Friend's speech on 20th April, 1953, in the course of the debate on the Budget proposals. In the other case a low British bid of approximately 375,000 dollars to supply a transformer to the city of Los Angeles was rejected on the grounds that evaluation of competing bids showed that no price advantage would be gained by acceptance of the British bid.

Mr. Grimond: While I think the answer shows a highly successful year for these British manufacturers, as the policy of both Governments is "trade not aid," have conversations been started with the United States to try to persuade them to take British goods, which is the only way we can repay our debts?

Mr. Amory: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We lose no opportunity of putting that view in every way we can to our friends in the United States.

Negotiations with Poland

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to enter into a new trade agreement with the Polish Government.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will announce the date on which discussions are likely to begin on the question of a new trade agreement with Poland.

Mr. Amory: Trade negotiations with Poland will begin on 4th March.

Mr. Rankin: May we hope that these will be conducted with all possible speed? Will the Minister say whether or not there will be an opportunity to discuss the agreement?

Mr. Amory: It is very difficult to say what agreement will emerge. I would rather defer that question for further consideration. No doubt, if he wishes, the hon. Gentleman will put down a further Question. It is rather hypothetical until the negotiations start.

Equipment (Proposed Russian Purchase)

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the official statement by Mr. Ivan Kabanov, Soviet Minister of Foreign Trade, that Soviet commercial organisations are prepared to place orders with Britain over the next three years to the value of £116,000,000 worth of trade; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on 16th February.

Mr. Rankin: I do not know what that answer was. In order to assist the House, would the Minister repeat it?

Mr. Amory: The substance of it was that the total orders which the Soviet Minister envisaged for three years amounted to about 4,500 million roubles. I said that, as far as we could see, at any rate rather less than half of the total would fall outside the present embargo.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister aware that orders of the kind indicated are badly needed by the British shipbuilding industry, where the outlook is very unpromising and where there is a grave threat of unemployment? Will he do his best to facilitate the giving of Russian orders and other foreign orders to British shipbuilding firms?

Mr. Amory: We shall certainly not lose sight of the interests of the British shipbuilding industry, and that aspect is under consideration.

Mr. Gaitskell: Could the Minister inform the House what rate of exchange has been used in converting this figure of rouble orders into sterling?

Mr. Amory: I was afraid that either the right hon. Gentleman or some other hon. Member would ask me that question. All I can say is that it was the same rate of exchange as that which the right hon. Member for Huyton used when he asked me the Question. I believe it is known as the "official rate."

Mr. Gaitskell: I presume that payment for this order will be made in sterling. Is that the case?

Mr. Amory: No, in sterling or gold.

Mr. Gaitskell: It is clear, then, that it will be made in sterling, under our payments agreement with the U.S.S.R.? Surely, if that is the case, the right hon. Gentleman can give us a clearer idea of the total value in sterling of the orders?

Mr. Amory: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to put down a special Question on that point, as I want to study it for some time before I give him an answer.

Anglo-Indian Textile Trade (Duty)

Mr. Drayson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what duty is charged on imported grey and bleached cloth, prints and rayon into the United Kingdom from India; and what duty is charged by India on similar exports from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Amory: No duty is chargeable on cotton piece goods imported from India, subject to the usual conditions relating to proof of origin and consignment. Rayon cloth imported from India, subject to the same conditions is liable to preferential duty at 5/6ths of the full rate applied to foreign goods, which varies according to the composition and width of the cloth. The import duties at present charged in India on United Kingdom cotton and rayon textiles range from 60 to 80 per cent ad valorem.

Mr. Drayson: Can the Minister say whether any conversations have taken place to try to get reciprocity in this matter, and to reduce the Indian duty to the level of the British?

Mr. Amory: We have from time to time pointed out this disparity between the rates charged on imports into India

and the rates which we charge on imports into this country of Indian goods, but the Indian authorities seem determined on the high rate of protection of their own industries, and my hon. Friend will realise that it is not for us to question the wisdom of their own policy in that respect.

German Debts (Payment of Claims)

Mr. Teeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the paying out of claims on German debts.

Mr. Amory: Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Teeling: Is it not true that the money has already been paid by Germany into this country, and that the President of the Board of Trade has already stated that he has cut down the number of people on the staff of the Custodian of Enemy Property? Can the right hon. Gentleman therefore explain why we are holding up this scheme, which is of some importance from the City point of view, and also from the point of view of the money being used again?

Mr. Amory: I agree that the sooner it is proceeded with the better, and my right hon. Friend indicated to my hon. Friend in answer to a Question the other day that we hoped shortly to be in a position to go ahead. Between then and now, we have had representations from certain creditor interests asking us to modify the existing scheme, and that request is being looked into. I hope that, when that has been done, we shall be able to take action within a comparatively short time.

Mr. Teeling: Cannot some intermediate payment be made?

Mr. Amory: I think we shall have to dispose of these representations first before we take any account of making an interim payment, but no further prolonged delay will take place.

Cigarettes (Distribution)

Sir H. Sutcliffe: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulties of some retailers of sweets and tobacco in obtaining a sufficient allocation of cigarettes for


their customers; and whether he will consider referring to the Monopolies Commission the present arrangements for the wholesale and retail distribution of cigarettes in this country.

Mr. H. Strauss: There is no general shortage of cigarettes, but I am aware that some distributors may not be able to get as many cigarettes of certain brands as they would like. I do not think that there are any grounds for referring this matter to the Monopolies Commission.

Sir H. Sutcliffe: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether there can be any justification for the fact that the most popular brands of cigarettes are still "under the counter" in some areas in the north of England, and only in the north of England, and that traders are receiving only one-third of the quantity they can sell of these cigarettes? Is it not also very wrong that some wholesalers are making it a condition of supply that the retailer must sell a certain quantity of confectionery, in the case of mixed businesses, so that the rationing of cigarettes is bound up with confectionery supplies?

Mr. Strauss: While there are restrictions on supplies of dollar tobacco it is impossible to increase the production of certain brands beyond a certain point. I do not think there is a case for referring this matter to the Monopolies Commission, but it may be that some aspects of the distribution arrangements fall within the scope of the general inquiry that is taking place under Section 15 of the Act.

New Factories and Extensions, Birkenhead

Mr. Collick: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new industrial projects, giving separately new factories and extensions exceeding 5,000 square feet, have been commenced in the Birkenhead county borough area since 1951.

Mr. H. Strauss: According to the records of the Board of Trade, which relate solely to new factories and extensions of over 5,000 square feet, two factories and three extensions, totalling 98,000 square feet and 35,000 square feet respectively, have been started in this area since 1st January, 1952.

Mr. Collick: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise how unsatisfactory his reply is? Is he aware that there are now well over 20,000 unemployed men on Merseyside, that the local authority has recommended the building of an advance factory in Birkenhead, and will he do something about it?

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question refers to Mersey-side, but he will realise that the figures for which he asked are for Birkenhead only. The figures for the Development Area are, of course, greater.

Companies, Dublin (U.K. Property)

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many companies incorporated in Dublin and transacting business in Great Britain as property owners are registered with the Registrar of Companies.

Mr. H. Strauss: Six companies incorporated in Dublin, which have property-owning as their main object, are registered with the Registrar of Companies under Part X of the Companies Act, 1948. I would point out that an oversea company is obliged to register under Part X only if it has established a place of business in this country.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: If I send the Minister details of certain Irish companies now being used by a bunch of crooks at 77, Gloucester Place, W.1, to continue the Brady slum racket, will he prosecute the wrongdoers concerned for illegal breaches of the Companies Act that may be brought to his notice?

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any evidence of apparent breaches of the Companies Act, my right hon. Friend would be grateful if he would bring them to his notice.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Would the Minister define the term "place of business" in connection with the registration of foreign companies in this country? Does it mean the actual place of manufacture, of distribution or what?

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman's question involves questions both of fact and of law which would have to be considered in each individual case.

Anglo-Japanese Trade

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken to increase the export of British goods to Japan; what Japanese tariffs are imposed on such exports; what type of Japanese imports into this country have increased during the past six months; and what commodities in these imports are in competition with similar commodities produced here.

Mr. Amory: In the recent agreement, the Japanese undertook to maintain their imports from the United Kingdom at not less than the 1953 level, and we secured specific quotas for wool yarns and manufactures, motor cycles, whisky and confectionery, for which the Japanese had made no provision in their current import programme. The Japanese tariff on most classes of wool doth is 20 per cent., on motor cycles 30 per cent., on whisky 50 per cent, and on confectionery 35 per cent, ad valorem.
Imports from Japan into the United Kingdom in the second half of 1953 decreased by £3·5 million below the first half; but within the total there were increases in some groups of which the main ones were grain and flour, wood and timber, raw silk, seeds and nuts for oil, and manufactures of wood and timber. These are mainly raw materials and semi-manufactures and do not compete with United Kingdom products to any extent.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has worked out a comparison between these two countries to discover whether one or the other is getting some advantage in trade, and whether there is some differentiation in the tariffs imposed? May I also ask whether any step has been taken towards securing some reciprocity?

Mr. Amory: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the only really satisfactory trade agreement is an agreement which works out to the advantage of both sides. We believe that this agreement falls very definitely into that category, and we believe that, from our own point of view, the effect will be very much to the net advantage of the United Kingdom.

Rayon Staple Fibre Imports (Duty)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that owing to a shortage of rayon staple

fibre, manufacturers are having to import supplies from Italy; that there is at present an import duty of ninepence a pound upon it; that this adds appreciably to the price of cloth exported; and whether, in view of the need to encourage exports, he will take immediate steps to allow manufacturers a drawback of the duty paid on such cloth exported.

Mr. Amory: Imports of rayon staple fibre are very small and practically the whole of the demand is met by domestic production, which is expected to increase further. The duty payable on such imports is thus unlikely to have any significant effect on export prices. If exporters generally can show that the import duty is a serious obstacle to export trade, my right hon. Friend will, of course, be prepared to consider the question of drawback.

Mr. Hall: I understand that woollen manufacturers in the West Riding have approached the Board of Trade on this matter, and have received no satisfaction. Surely that in itself is evidence that there is need, because these fibres are being imported with the results that I have mentioned.

Mr. Amory: It may well be that a case has not yet been made out showing that this is a significant handicap to the export business, and if the right hon. Gentleman has any additional evidence, or knows anybody who has, which will show that this is a serious handicap, then whether it has been considered in the past or not I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will be considered further. We shall be glad of any relevant evidence we can get on this point.

Mr. Hall: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence that there has been hoarding by Lancashire manufacturers of this material?

Mr. Amory: I do not think so. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the production of staple fibres has increased enormously in recent years and consumption in this country now is fortunately running at a very high level indeed. Production is still increasing. I should be very glad to receive from the right hon. Gentleman any evidence he has showing that the present production is insufficient. My evidence is that the total quantity imported is only about 1½ per cent, of the present home production.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the need for hon. Members to be advised adequately and competently on questions relating to Scotland, he will now recommend the appointment of a Solicitor-General for Scotland who is a Member of Parliament.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I am not aware that the House is inadequately or incompetently advised on questions relating to Scotland or that debates in this sphere are unduly curtailed. As I told the hon. Member last year, we have a wealth of precedents on our side; I shall, however, be glad to consider any suggestions that the hon. Member may care to make for providing the Solicitor-General for Scotland with a seat.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that a very complicated Housing (Repairs and Rents) Bill is before the Scottish Grand Committee and that last week there was no legal adviser there at all to advise us? Can he give us an assurance that if this goes on the Lord Advocate is not going to be guillotined?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the Committee is making very good progress in spite of this deficiency.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (FORUM)

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the inherent difficulties at Berlin and the United Nations organisation in obtaining agreement between representatives of nation States, elected by their peoples to maintain the interests of each of their own countries, he will take steps to create a forum through the revision of the United Nations Charter, or by other means, where the spokesmen will be not only the representatives of nation States, but those who can speak for the aspirations of mankind as a whole.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. All this seems very good but I doubt whether I shall live—or at any rate hold office— long enough to witness its entire fulfilment.

Mr. Craddock: Will the Prime Minister recall his Copenhagen speech of 1950, when he said that it was essential to create an authoritative and powerful world order, and that unless effective

world government came quickly into action the prospects of peace and human progress were dark and doubtful? Is it not a fact that we have just had a European conference to settle the difficulties of Europe, that we have argued the British point of view, the French have argued the French point of view, the Americans theirs and the Russians theirs, and that we have had no result? Will the Prime Minister try to see that the U.N. is so widened as to embrace all these matters instead of their being settled on a purely sectional or regional basis?

The Prime Minister: If I had had the power, which I should have relished, and which I should have been very glad to assume, I should not have made the United Nations organisation in its present shape or form. On the contrary, I always said that it ought to be based on regional organisations which should aim at drawing the largest and most important minds from large groups of nations and bringing them to a sort of super-assembly at the summit. But this view I was not able to put into force at the time, and I have not had any opportunity since.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEVELOPMENT FUND (EXPENDITURE, WALES)

Mr. Walking: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the functions of the Development Commission in Wales; what assistance it has given to industries in rural Wales; and whether he will issue a statement of its activities during the last two years.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): The Development Commissioners make recommendations to the Treasury on applications for advances from the Development Fund. The statement of assistance given to industries in rural Wales, and the list of these and other activities supported in Wales, is rather long. With permission, I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, together with an account of the general purposes for which the Fund is designed.
Following is the statement:
The Development Commissioners make recommendations to the Treasury on applications for advances from the Development Fund for the following purposes, in England and Scotland as well as in Wales:

1. Agriculture and rural industries.
2. Fisheries harbours.
3. Fisheries (including fisheries research).


4. Any other purposes calculated to promote the economic development of Great Britain, provided that they are of the same kind as the foregoing.

Assistance direct from the Fund to industries in rural Wales has been given by way of loan for the erection of factories of Blaenau Ffestiniog and Penygroes, and loans have been made for the development of a small carpet-making industry in Blaenau Ffestiniog.
Continuing technical advice and instruction to rural industries in Wales as in England, is given through the Rural Industries Bureau, which maintains a Welsh office, and which is

ADVANCES SANCTIONED TO ORGANISATIONS IN WALES DURING THE PERIOD 1ST APRIL, 1952 — 16TH FEBRUARY, 1954


—




Financial year 1952–53
Financial year 1953–54 to 16th February, 1954
Total


Rural Community Councils:
£
£
£


Carmarthenshire:











General community work
…
…
…
900
0
0
900
0
0
1,800
0
0


Rural industries work
…
…
…
…
1,214
0
5
1,119
0
0
2,333
0
5


Monmouthshire:











General community work
…
…
…
750
0
0
750
0
0
1,500
0
0


Rural industries work
…
…
…
…
1,688
1
8
1,682
0
0
3,370
1
8


Pembrokeshire:











General community work
…
…
…
750
0
0
750
0
0
1,500
0
0


Rural industries work
…
…
…
…
1,161
18
4
1,132
0
0
2,293
18
4


Montgomeryshire:











General community work
…
…
…
750
0
0
750
0
0
1,500
0
0


Rural industries work
…
…
…
…
1,574
10
9
1,636
0
0
3,210
10
9


Merionethshire:











General community work
…
…
…
900
0
0
900
0
0
1,800
0
0


Caernarvonshire:











General community work
…
…
…
750
0
0
765
0
0
1,515
0
0


Rural industries work
…
…
…
…
1,460
0
0
1,409
0
0
2,869
0
0


Anglesey:











General community work
…
…
…
750
0
0
650
0
0
1,400
0
0


Rural industries work
…
…
…
…
1,184
6
10
1,181
0
0
2,365
6
10


Denbighshire:











General community work
…
…
…
900
0
0
900
0
0
1,800
0
0


Rural industries work
…
…
…
…
1,383
0
7
1,282
0
0
2,665
0
7


Cardiganshire:











Grants to establish new community council:











(a) General community work
…
…
…
—
900
0
0
900
0
0


(b) Office equipment
…
…
…
…
—
280
0
0
280
0
0


Council of Social Service for Wales and Monmouthshire:











General community work in rural areas of Wales and Monmouthshire
7,200
0
0
6,540
0
0
13,740
0
0


Ffestlniog Carpets, Ltd.:











Advance for working capital
…
…
…
3,500
0
0
3,397
13
0
6,897
13
0


Welsh Agricultural Organisation Society:











Grants in aid of the Society's work during calendar year 1952:











Basic
…
…
…
…
3,738
0
0
—
3,738
0
0


£ for £
…
…
…
…
2,100
0
0
—
2,100
0
0


Calendar year 1953:











Basic
…
…
…
…
—
4,750
0
0
4,750
0
0


£ for £
…
…
…
…
—
2,100
0
0
2,100
0
0


Welsh Agriculture and Industries, Ltd.:











Supplementary Loan: agricultural experiment in Anglesey
30,000
0
0
—
30,000
0
0


New Quay Urban District Council:











Grant to meet cost of repairs to the pier protecting New Quay Harbour
19,450
0
0
—
19,450
0
0


Totals
…
…
…
…
82,103
18
7*
33,773
13
0*
115,877
11
7*


* These sums were not necessarily drawn in their entirety during the financial years 1952–53 and 1953–54.

financed entirely from the Development Fund and through the loans available to rural craftsmen in certain approved categories from the Rural Industries Equipment and Workshop Loan Funds, also financed by the Development Fund. Grants from the Development Fund maintain rural industries organisers employed by rural community councils, of which there are nine in Wales.
The activities supported from the Development Fund in Wales are not confined to rural industries, and the following is a list of advances from the Fund, sanctioned or drawn since 1st April, 1952, to bodies in Wales and Monmouthshire.

PAYMENTS MADE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1952–53 AND 1953–54 FROM ADVANCES SANCTIONED IN YEARS PREVIOUS TO 1952–53




Financial year 1952–53
Financial year 1953–54 to 16th February, 1954
Total


—

£
£
£


Montgomery County Recreation Association (new pavilion):











From grant sanctioned in 1951 (£2,200)
…
1,300
0
0
—
1,300
0
0


From loan sanctioned in 1951 (£2,300)
…
2,300
0
0
—
2,300
0
0


Blaenau Ffestiniog Urban District Council (erection of factory):











From ioan sanctioned in 1949 (£50,000)
…
5,000
0
0
—
5,000
0
0


From loan sanctioned in 1949 (£50,000)
…
—
35,000
0
0
35,000
0
0


Gwyrfai Rural District Council (erection of factory):











From loan sanctioned in 1948 (£50,000)
…
7,500
0
0
5,000
0
0
12,500
0
0


Ffestiniog Carpets Ltd:











From loan sanctioned in 1950 (£11,000)
…
2,500
0
0
—
2,500
0
0


Welsh Agriculture and Industries Ltd.:











From loan sanctioned in 1948 (£113,700)
…
11,682
6
0
—
11,682
6
0


Welsh Agricultural Organisation Society:











From grant sanctioned in 1951 (£3,100 Basic:£2,000 £ for £)
146
12
5
—
146
12
5


University College of Wales:











From grant sanctioned in 1949 for River Pollution Research (£90)
—
67
13
7
67
13
7


Total
…
30,428
18
5
40,067
13
7
70,496
12
0


GRAND TOTALS
…
112,532
17
0
73,841
6
7
186,374
3
7

The Development Fund has also provided funds for the erection of temporary village halls by the National Council of Social Service and for loans in relief of the cost of permanent village halls. Grants are also made to the National Federation of Women's Institutes in aid of some aspects of their work, and the Council for the Promotion of Field Studies, which maintains a field centre at Dale Fort (Pembrokeshire) has received some assistance by way of capital grant from the Development Fund.
Wales also derives some benefit from the considerable expenditure on fisheries research which has been authorised annually from the Development Fund.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING SOCIETY, MANCHESTER (REGISTRAR'S INQUIRIES)

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the results of the inquiries made by the Registrar of Friendly Societies into the conduct of the Hollins Permanent Building Society of Manchester.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Following his inquiries into the Hollins Permanent

Building Society of Manchester, the Registrar of Friendly Societies has secured an undertaking from the society that it will not invite capital from the public. Accordingly, the Registrar does not propose to make an order under Section 11 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939. As a result of his inquiries the Registrar successfully took proceedings against the society and its then chairman for failing to comply with the provisions of the Building Societies Act, 1939, and he has drawn the attention of the society to other matters for criticism.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Chancellor aware that since this matter was referred to the Registrar of Friendly Societies on the advice of the Government, the former chairman of the building society, Mr. Richard Hollins Murray, has been quoting to my constituents their letters to me and threatening proceedings for libel? Will the Chancellor make inquiries as to the circumstances in which my constituents' letters were disclosed to Mr. Murray.


Further, will he particularly inquire whether any precautions were taken against their misuse by this man?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly make further inquiries at the request of the hon. Member, but I understand that the hon. Member's constituents' letters were made available, and that they were then passed on. I think it would have been better if the hon. Member's permission had been obtained before the opportunity was given to Mr. Murray to quote from them.

Mr. Woodburn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that all letters to Members of Parliament are matters of Privilege and cannot be used as a basis for any other action?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that follows.

Mr. G. Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance as to whether we are now to accept, by a simple answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that correspondence which is sent to us in confidence from our constituents may be given anywhere at any time, once it is in the possession of Ministers, without our knowing anything about it?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that follows at all. If an hon. Member encloses a letter to a Minister I think the usual course is to ask his permission before the letter is sent on, but I think it depends, as hon. Members will agree, on the style of case. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not think it is possible to lay down a general rule.

Mr. Woodburn: This is a most serious matter. Constituents write on the most delicate matters to Members of Parliament and feel that what they are doing is sacrosanct from any disclosure to an outside body. It is a great pity if that principle is departed from.

Mr. Speaker: I think there is great substance in what is said. I was guarding myself against laying down a general and sweeping declaration because there are so many matters on which members of the public write to Members of Parliament. Some are by their nature confidential and are never to be disclosed, and others are quite different. As the matter has come up suddenly, the House had better let me consider it and if I can I shall try to tell the House what I find.

Mr. Porter: Is it not a fact that some letters sent to Members of Parliament are net confidential and that others may be, but surely every letter sent from a Member of Parliament to a Minister is confidential?

Mr. Speaker: I will consider that point too.

Mr. Griffiths: Do I understand that you will consider this matter and advise us further, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: That is what I have asked the permission of the House to do. as the matter has arisen very suddenly.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEACHING PROFESSION, SCOTLAND (ROYAL COMMISSION)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

78. Mr. G. M. THOMSON to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will recommend the setting up of a Royal Commission on the status, rewards and conditions of employment of the teaching profession in Scotland.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: On a point of order. I rise to seek guidance concerning the constitutional responsibilities of the Prime Minister. I understand that the Prime Minister has the sole responsibility for recommending to the Queen the setting up of a Royal Commission on any particular subject. I refer to Question No. 78, standing in my name on the Order Paper today, which asks the Government if they will consider the setting up of a Royal Commission on the teaching profession in Scotland.
I put this Question down for answer by the Prime Minister and it appeared originally on the Order Paper addressed to the Prime Minister. I do not raise the point of the transfer of Questions from one Department to another, as I know that you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled on many occasions that that is a matter of administrative convenience, and not within your control. But I do respectfully submit that this kind of Question is plainly the constitutional responsibility of the Prime Minister and ought to be answered by him to the House.
Furthermore, this issue raises matters of some importance to hon. Members,


particularly from Scottish constituencies—but I think also from English constituencies—on both sides of the House. The Secretary of State for Scotland is out of our verbal reach today at Question Time, and is likely to be so until, I think, at the very earliest, 16th March. He will then have a large number of Departmental responsibilities to answer for of the type about which English Members can ask English Ministers on a weekly basis. In fact, the Secretary of State for Scotland sometimes seems to us to be almost a complete Cabinet in himself. We sympathise with him too much to ask that he shall take over the Prime Minister's responsibility for Scottish Questions.
With regard to Questions on Royal Commissions on Scottish affairs, I would submit that both for constitutional propriety and for the convenience of the House they should be answered by the Prime Minister himself.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member himself has said, the matter has nothing to do with me. If Questions are transferred there is nothing I can do about it.

The Prime Minister: The Question has not been reached, or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would have given an answer. But if the hon. Gentleman will put down the Question again, and if he vehemently desires an answer from English lips, I shall certainly endeavour to oblige him.

Mr. Woodburn: A slightly different point of order arises. One understands that the Prime Minister reserves the right to transfer certain Questions to other Ministers. But when they are quite definitely Questions which he has asked another colleague to answer on his behalf, should not they appear in the same order on the Paper as the Prime Minister's Questions appear, and then be answered by permission, as part of the Prime Minister's list of Questions?

Mr. Speaker: That also has nothing to do with me. If the House wants to alter the rota of Questions, it is a matter for the House.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the Prime Minister setting a precedent? If in future Members have any vehement wish for him to answer their Questions, do we understand

that he will accede to their request as he has done so gracefully today?

The Prime Minister: Only when they raise strong emotions of a national character.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA (FUTURE)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): I wish to make a statement on the future of Uganda.
The long-term aim of Her Majesty's Government is to build the Protectorate into a self-governing State. In working towards this we shall ensure that Africans play a constantly increasing part in the political institutions of the country, in the Civil Service and in economic development. When self-government is achieved the government of the country will be mainly in the hands of Africans.
The advancement of Africans, and the economic development on which that advancement depends cannot take place without the help of the other races. When the time for self-government eventually comes Her Majesty's Government will wish to be satisfied that the rights of the minority communities resident in Uganda are properly safeguarded in the constitution, but this will not detract from the primarily African character of the country.
I have put in the Library copies of two speeches made by the Governor to the Protectorate Legislature on 20th November last year and on 5th February this year. These speeches set out the comprehensive measures which the Protectorate Government are taking for African advancement, and I commend them to the attention of the House.
Some fears have been expressed that the development of Uganda's economic resources will bring in large numbers of permanent immigrants. These fears are groundless. We must expand mining and secondary industries in order to diversify the economy and to pay for the expansion of social and other services. For this, outside capital and technical skill are needed and must have their proper reward. But there will be safeguards to ensure that the future interests of the Africans are not prejudiced.
There will be strict control of immigration and of the alienation of land, and


the Uganda Government and industry itself will train Africans for higher positions, and ensure proper conditions of labour. No industrial colour bar will be tolerated in Uganda. The Governor is ready to discuss with African representatives any suggestions they may make to help allay any fears, if such still remain.
It is too early to forecast the form of the constitution of Uganda when self-government is eventually achieved, though it is clear that only as a united country will Uganda be strong enough and prosperous enough to meet the growing needs of the people. There are, however, constitutional questions relating to Buganda—in particular the future relations between the Kabakaship, the Ministers and the Great Lukiko, and the Legislative Council—which must be looked at now so that we can decide on what lines it is best for these relationships to develop.
The Baganda themselves should clearly take a leading part in working out these problems. To help in this, the Governor and I have agreed that an independent expert should be invited to go out to Uganda. He will consult with representatives of the Baganda and with the Protectorate Government to help reach agreed recommendations for her Majesty's Government to consider. In the meantime I have agreed that the Buganda reforms announced in March, 1953, need not be held up.
In Bunyoro, Toro and Ankole, the Councils are becoming more representative. I do not think that there will be any difficulties, but the Governor will arrange for the expert to talk over with the rulers of these districts their future relationships with their councils, if they so wish.
The Governor will pursue these matters on his return to Uganda, and as far as Buganda is concerned will discuss them with the Regents and will make an early statement to the Lukiko.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Secretary of State has made a very important statement which we shall want to consider in detail. May I say how much we welcome his reaffirmation of the long-term policy on Uganda which he and the Governor outlined some time ago? In particular, we welcome the assurances contained in his statement, and amplified in the speeches to which he has referred—which I hope

all hon. Members will read—that in the progress of the economic development there will be such measures taken as will allay the fears expressed by Africans.
May I ask the Secretary of State a question about the discussions on the future relationships of the Great Lukiko with Buganda and Uganda? We welcome those discussions. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us the name of the expert who is to accompany the Governor and have discussions? I gather that he will have no terms of reference, but will discuss the situation generally, having regard to any necessary revision of the old agreements. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to assure us that those discussions will take place in the immediate future.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not in a position to give the right hon. Gentleman the name of the expert. At the present moment we are conducting a very violent courtship of an expert, and we hope that he will succumb to our blandishments. The idea is that he should go out there shortly—perhaps in two or three months.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider having further discussions with the Kabaka in the light of the admirable statement which he has just made, which might possibly alter the Kabaka's views?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. I must make it quite clear that our decision in the matter is final.

Mr. T. Reid: Knowing, as he does, the grave defects in the Kabaka's character, will the right hon. Gentleman see that on no account is this man imposed as ruler in Buganda?

Mr. Lyttelton: There is a legal action pending, and the less I say about the matter the better, but I must make it quite clear that the decision of Her Majesty's Government is final.

Sir R. Acland: Can the Minister indicate now, or publish a statement later, showing what are the points on which the Kabaka is unwilling to share Her Majesty's Government's views about the future development of the country? If those points turn out to be quite unsubstantial, could not this matter be reconsidered? Must the door be closed, in view of the most serious representations


which were made by the very able deputation which came to see us from that country in recent weeks?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. I am afraid that the matter is now closed as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: I appreciate the general principles of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. May I ask him whether, at the end of the discussions about the relationship of the Kabaka to the Baganda, the Governor and the Lukiko, it will be possible for the Lukiko to have a free choice of their Kabaka?

Mr. Lyttelton: We must await the outcome of the discussions. I have frequently asked the hon. Member not to cast me for the role of a prophet.

Mrs. White: On the economic side, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether steps will be taken to see that those in managerial positions in industry and commerce in Uganda underwrite publicly the principles set out in his statement?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is quite another question.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR (GUARANTEES AND GRANTS) BILL

3.42 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of this little Bill is to enable the management of the British Industries Fair to be organised on new lines which are more in accord with the needs of the times and which will enable the Fair to operate under conditions of the greatest efficiency. It is important that we should get the background right, and I suggest that we should look very briefly at the history of this institution.
As have so many British achievements, it started in a very chancy manner. In 1914, when supplies from Germany and Austria were cut off, the Board of Trade was anxious to encourage our manufacturers to manufacture substitutes, and it arranged small exhibitions. These went so well that in the spring of 1915 the first British Industries Fair was held. Since then Fairs have been held annually, except in 1925—when the British Empire Exhibition was on—during the war years, and the year immediately after the last war.
As hon. Members know, Fairs have been held concurrently in London and Birmingham. The engineering, building, hardware and electrical sections have been held in Birmingham, and, broadly speaking, all the others have been held in London. The Birmingham section has been organised differently from that of London, having been organised by the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce with a separate board, and separate financial responsibility, except for publicity, and it is significant that the Birmingham section operates at a profit. In fact, not only have they made a profit, but, during the last year or two, they have been able to make quite a substantial contribution towards general publicity. The London section has been held at Olympia and Earls Court and has been organised by the Exhibitions Branch of the Commercial Relations and Export Department of the Board of Trade.
In 1926, the Government decided to make a grant of £25,000 towards overseas publicity. That grant was continued until 1932. It then stopped, but from 1947 onwards Government grants were restarted and continued for overseas publicity, at a scale varying between £80,000 and £110,000 a year, those grants being paid and administered by the Board of Trade. In the seven postwar years, the trading operations of the London section have resulted in a trading loss to the total of about £150,000, though the last two years have shown a small profit.
I should like to say a word about the Ramsden Report. In 1946, a Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Ramsden, reported to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand). That Report was made in accordance with terms of reference with regard to the policy which the Government should pursue in relation to exhibitions generally, but it was asked some specific questions about the British Industries Fair. Very briefly, its recommendations were, first, that the Fair should be restarted after the war and should be held annually; secondly, that while there was much to be said far trying to avoid a charge on public funds, other than for publicity, this aim must not prevent the smaller exhibitors from being encouraged to exhibit, nor should it govern the layout and constitution of the Fair; thirdly—and this is an important recommendation—the two sections of the fair should be concentrated as soon as possible in one centre, namely, London, and the Government should be responsible for buying a site and erecting buildings on it. The Committee estimated the cost of doing that at £6 million to £8 million, in 1945 or 1946 at the latest. Hon. Members will realise that the cost today would be £12 million or more. The cost of the buildings would certainly almost be doubled.
In 1952, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board Trade felt that it would be advisable to get some fresh advice in the light of the fact that seven years had elapsed since the end of the war and there had been a return to a buyers' market. In April, 1952, he referred the question of future policy for the British Industries Fair to the Exhibitions Advisory Committee, which is a standing committee composed of leading industrialists and representatives of the Association of

British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers and the Trades Union Congress.
Its terms of reference were, first to recommend whether, in the light of recent experience, any changes of purpose, character, scope and location of the Fair were called for. Secondly, whether the responsibility for the organisation of the Fair should be assumed in full or in part by industrial and commercial interests, and if so, on what basis. Thirdly, to make recommendations on the general financial aspect of the Fair including the amount to be spent on publicity.
The Exhibition Advisory Committee referred this matter to a sub-committee under the chairmanship of Sir Ernest Goodale and in due course the report of the sub-committee was approved and adopted by the main committee. I should like to make that clear. Having been approved and adopted by the main Exhibition Advisory Committee it was forwarded to the President last September. Subsequently, it was published as White Paper, Cmd. 9013 in November, 1953.
I know that my right hon. Friend would like publicly to thank Sir Ernest Goodale and the members of his committee for the time they spent and the trouble they took in this matter. The committee, a strong and competent body, went most thoroughly into this problem and the questions involved. It finally submitted what we considered to be a very businesslike report and we felt that in all the circumstances it would be right to attach great weight to its findings.
I will not describe the recommendations in detail because, as I have said, they have already been issued as a White Paper, but I will summarise them briefly. The Goodale Committee recommended, as the Ramsden Committee had done, that the British Industries Fair should continue annually. It emphasised that the object of the Fair was to promote trade generally, both overseas and at home. It emphasised that the Fair was more than a trade affair, that it should be a pageant of all that is best in British industry.
Where the Goodale Committee disagreed with the Ramsden Committee was on the point of the Ramsden Committee's recommendation that the Birmingham


and London sections should be concentrated in London. The Goodale Committee felt, in view of the high cost of providing a site and adequate buildings on the scale required, that it could not recommend the Government, in existing circumstances, to build a permanent home in London for the whole of the Exhibition. The committee agreed that a permanent home was a desirable objective and suggested that the development of the Crystal Palace site should be kept in view. But in view of the high cost it made no recommendation in that connection, in fact, it recommended that this was not feasible in present circumstances. I have mentioned the estimate made in 1945 and I think hon. Members will agree that that was a realistic recommendation.
The Goodale Committee went on to say that it believed that the success of the Fair depended more on the management than on any other single factor as I think we would all agree. The committee considered that the Board of Trade had gone a good job. I am quite sure the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East and the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) will concur when I say that I entirely agree with that statement. I believe the Board of Trade has done a good job in this respect.
But the committee pointed out that Civil Service management of the Fair had certain drawbacks and specified two of them. One was the lack of continuity, owing to civil servants being transferred from one job to another and the other was that the methods of Government administration were, in certain respects, too inflexible for a job of this kind. It therefore recommended that an independent corporation should be formed to do this job. It recommended a company limited by guarantee. It suggested that the company should be formed, as it were, of three trustees who would, roughly speaking, take the place of the shareholders in a company with share capital; and that the trustee should be the President for the time being of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries and the National Union of Manufacturers.
The committee recommended that there should be a board of directors of not more than seven; that the chairman should be a permanent industrialist; that there should be four independent directors including one who should be an exhibitor, and another who should be a financial expert; that one director should be appointed by the Government, and that there should be one representative of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. The sole job of the trustees would be the appointment and, if necessary, the dismissal of the directors.
It recommended that the working capital of this company should be provided in this way; that the Government should give a guarantee for the first five years up to a total limit of £100,000 and with that guarantee the company should borrow the working capital required. The committee recommended that the company should so conduct its affairs that after five years it should be able to finance itself without further direct Government assistance, except for publicity.
So far as publicity was concerned, the recommendation was that the Government should contribute £100,000 a year for the first five years for overseas publicity and that they should also provide an additional amount for home publicity during the years 1954 and 1955. That is a very brief summary of the recommendations of the Goodale Committee. I think they are particularly relevant to our debate today. After careful consideration the Government decided to accept the main recommendations.

Mr. Ellis Smith: While not differing to any great extent from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask whether consideration has been given to the need for changing the site of the exhibition at different times? We had an example of the success of that practice during the Festival of Britain, and if the Minister has not given consideration to it, especially as regards the Birmingham centre, will that consideration be given when this Bill is passed?

Mr. Amory: I think that would come within the terms of reference of the new body, but the hon. Member will agree


that there are appalling practical difficulties in the way of holding trade exhibitions of this magnitude in different centres. The question of stands would arise and the enormous expense of carrying them about the country, so that I doubt whether his suggestion would prove feasible.
In deciding to accept the recommendations of the Goodale Committee the Government felt that in the very competitive conditions of a buyers' market the most important single thing was that there should be the closest possible association with industry. We believe that the more industry feels itself responsible for the organisation the better supported and more successful the Fair is likely to be. Secondly, we felt that we had to look at the present situation. While, in existing circumstances, and under present arrangements, the Birmingham section retains its position, as regards the London section, in spite of the most intense efforts by the Board of Trade, it has been found harder and harder to maintain support at the levels current during the years immediately after the war.
I think that that is partly due to the growing competition from specialised industrial fairs. These fairs seem to be going ahead, and it is interesting to remember that many of them owe their birth to the British Industries Fair itself. Thirdly, we were impressed by the argument of the Goodale Committee that an independent corporation of the type envisaged would be likely to afford better continuity of service and more economical administration.
Another point which influenced us was that the proposals which have been made would have this advantage: the Government's financial obligation would be known and limited to the five years, and after that there would be no direct continuing obligation, except for overseas publicity which would have to be considered year by year in the light of circumstances. The main consideration that influenced us was not the consideration of saving money in this case, but because we believed that the changes proposed would lead to better fairs, and would, as the Goodale Committee suggest, inject new life into the London section.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: When my right hon. Friend says that the London end of the Fair has been rather lacking in support, what does he mean? Does he mean support from firms anxious to show their goods at the London end of the Fair or lack of support from the visiting public and from potential buyers abroad, or both?

Mr. Amory: No. I think that the demand on space at the Fair on the part of exhibitors is not as strong now as it was some years ago. I do not want to make too much of that, because it varies from year to year.
I should like now to come to the specific proposals. The main proposal is that the responsibility for the management should be transferred from the Board of Trade to an independent company, as described in the White Paper; that this company should have an overall responsibility for co-ordinating the policy for the Fair in both sections, but so far as management and operation goes, it is envisaged that the Birmingham section will continue just as independently as it is at present. We hope very much that the same friendly relations and co-operation will go on as goes on at present between the two sections of the Fair.
We have decided that it would be right to have one additional trustee beyond the three trustees recommended in the Goodale Committee's Report, namely, the President of the Trades Union Congress, who has accepted that task. It is proposed that the Government should guarantee loans up to a maximum of £100,000 for five years. In addition, the Government will continue grants for overseas publicity, but we feel that the amount cannot be laid down in advance over a period like five years, but must be decided upon year by year in the light of the prevailing circumstances.
I should like to say a word about the steps which have actually been taken to give effect to these proposals up to date. On 24th November, I made a statement in the House on the lines of the proposals which I have just mentioned. A company was actually inaugurated on 3rd February under the name of British Industries Fair. Limited—a company limited by the guarantee. The four trustees whom I have mentioned have invited Sir Arthur Smout to become chairman of the new company if the Bill is passed.
I am glad to say, and I believe that everyone who considers the matter will also be glad to hear, that Sir Arthur Smout has been willing to accept that appointment. I should like to remind hon. Members that Sir Arthur Smout was a director of Imperial Chemical Industries and that during the war he was Director of Ammunition Production at the Ministry of Supply. What is more important, I think, is that for a number of years he was on the Fair Management Committee of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. Therefore, he is very familiar with the organisation of that section of the Fair. He is also a director of various companies.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: How old is he?

Mr. Amory: I can only say that Sir Arthur Smout does not look very old. I should think that he is probably in his 60s.
The work of the chairman and directors will be part-time. I think that there is provision in the memorandum or articles of the company—I am not sure whether in the memorandum or the articles—whereby salaries can be paid to directors, but the present intention, I understand, is that the chairman and directors will serve without salaries. I imagine, however, that their out-of-pocket expenses will be paid.
The Amendment which the Opposition have put down criticises the proposals from the point of view that they are a departure from the considered policy of the Ramsden Committee, and that the investment of public funds is made without satisfactory Parliamentary control. I should like to say a word or two about the Amendment. I was surprised when I saw it, because I doubted whether either of those two points was really a point of substance when we considered the whole problem.
I should like to go back to what I have said about the Ramsden Committee. I mentioned that one of its main recommendations—and I am not clear whether this is the one which the Opposition is conscious about—was that the two sections of the Fair should be concentrated in London, which, it suggested, would involve a cost at that time of

£6 million to £8 million—a cost which would be much higher today. I cannot think that hon. Members opposite can be suggesting that that is the trouble with the proposals which we are bringing forward now, and that we ought to be tackling this question of concentration as an immediate practicable proposition.
We must remember that the Ramsden Committee reported in 1946 in the light of pre-war experience and post-war needs so far as it could see them at that time, whereas the Goodale Committee reported in the light of seven years' post-war experience and of looking to the conditions which are on us now of a buyers' market. I think that we ought also to remember that five members of the Exhibition's Advisory Committee were also members of the Ramsden Committee, and three of those members were actually members of the sub-committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Ernest Goodale, which produced this report.
So far as these matters are concerned, they were able to consider the problem in the light of the outlook of 1952, having also considered it in 1946, with the result that they appear to have come to different conclusions. These members were Mr. Evans, Sir Luke Fawcett, Sir Ernest Goodale, Sir Guy Locock and Sir Raymond Streat. Concerning the relative importance of the two committees, I personally do not think that there is anything very difficult to reconcile about the two, except one thing: how feasible it would be to concentrate the two on one site.
The Ramsden Committee met only four times, whereas the Goodale Committee met a great many times more than that, and, I believe, went into the problem in great detail. Its attention was particularly focused on this British industries problem. I am not clear why, except for that one proposal of the concentration on one site, the present proposals are considered to conflict with the Ramsden Committee's Report. I suggest that we are right to attach more weight to the more recent report, in the light of present circumstances, than to a report made eight years ago.
I should like to say a word about the question of Parliamentary control. I think it is important that we should get this thing in perspective and remember the size of the problem. The maximum


liability on public funds is up to a maximum of £100,000 for working capital and the provision for any losses that might conceivably arise in the early years. Against this, let it be remembered that in the present circumstances a total of £150,000 has been lost, spread over seven years.
There are safeguards from the point of view of public funds. Again, one should consider the size of the problem. It is not an astronomical amount of public funds which is at risk. First, under Clause 1 (1), when the Treasury gives guarantees it must make a statement to Parliament as to the guarantees it has given, and at the end of five years has to make a statement to Parliament of the total guarantees which have been given and the results that have accrued. Second, when giving guarantees the Treasury can give them in such manner and subject to such conditions as it thinks fit. This, too, is a safeguard.
In addition, the Board of Trade, on behalf of the Government, have the right to nominate one director. It is not our view that this director should be someone to direct the policy of the board, or even interfere with the policy on which the board may decide. Our idea is that the board of directors of the company should have a free hand to decide the policy on which the company should operate. We regard the Government-nominated director more as a link between us and the company, to keep us in touch with what is going on and to say how the future looks from the point of view of the board of directors.
Perhaps the most important practical safeguard is the quality of the four trustees in the persons of the four people whom I have mentioned. They are the people who have the important job of selecting and appointing the independent directors. Control of the grant for publicity will be about as effective in practice as it is at present, because the Board of Trade will make the grant and will do so subject to what conditions it likes to specify. If we all try to maintain a sense of proportion and look at the nature of the problem, I believe all hon. Members will feel that in the circumstances we are not risking public funds unduly.
I can deal with the Bill in two sentences. Clause 1 empowers the Treasury to grant loans up to £100,000

during the first five years. Clause 2 empowers the Board of Trade to make grants for publicity comparable in nature, though not necessarily in size, to the grants that are made at present.
This little Bill does not mean in any way that the Government have lost, or are losing, interest in the British Industries Fair. On the contrary, we believe that side by side with the specialised fairs which I have mentioned and which are going ahead—and, perhaps, sometimes in association with them—the British Industries Fair has an important and a continuing pant to play as our national shop window. The Government will do everything possible to help to ensure the success of the fair.
I doubt whether the saying,
If you want a thing well done, do it yourself
is always and invariably sound. With the difficult days ahead the first requirement is that there should be the closest possible association with industry and the greatest possible flexibility. I believe that the proposed arrangements will provide both these things better than is possible under the present arrangements.
I hope that what I have said may have allayed some of the anxieties of hon. Members opposite. I particularly hope that I have in some way reassured the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East and the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham, because I know how keen both of them were on the British Industries Fair when they had important responsibilities at the Board of Trade. Although there is always room for honest disagreement in matters of this kind as to the best way of setting about something, our aim is the same and I should be very sorry if the British Industries Fair were to become a matter of acute political controversy.
All of us, equally, wish British industry well, and we are all seeking only the conditions under which it is most likely to flourish and the best possible conditions under which it can operate. We hoped and thought that these proposals, which were the outcome of thorough investigation by a committee of most competent representatives of industry, would have commended themselves to all sections of the House as just, sensible and businesslike arrangements for the future.
I hope that when the debate is concluded, the House will decide to give this small Bill a Second Reading and that the Opposition may decide, after all, that it is not necessary to press their opposition to the point of dividing the House. It would be much more satisfactory if we could launch this new project with the good wishes and support of the Government and the whole House, and I hope very much that this will be the result.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill the main proposals of which involve a departure from the considered policy of the Ramsden Committee and involve an investment of public funds without satisfactory Parliamentary control.
I move the Amendment because we on this side of the House think it is the best way to get a discussion upon the Bill and because the terms of the Amendment contain arguments of substance. I am prepared to accept the assurance of the Minister of State, Board of Trade, that the Government are not losing their enthusiasm for the British Industries Fair. The right hon. Gentleman will, however, forgive me if I say that he has rather limited my arguments, and I can only conclude that he has regarded the British Industries Fair in the same limited manner. It is for this reason that we on this side take exception to what the Government propose to do.
I agree at once that none of us wants to see the British Industries Fair become a subject of political controversy. Trade and industry are far too important for that. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, we shall not develop our arguments on themes which will exacerbate feelings of that kind.
The work of the sub-committee and its acceptance by the Goodale Committee, which has resulted in the presentation of the Bill, was of the highest order. I worked with many of those gentlemen and I have nothing but praise for their accomplishments. As an exhibition advisory committee to the Board of Trade, they did their work magnificently. I had experience, year after year, of hearing them pay tribute to the wonderful work carried out by the Board of Trade, and

I am quite sure that they still hold that view.
Where I think things have gone wrong is that the terms of reference from the President of the Board of Trade to the Goodale Committee were badly drafted. For example, the first of these was:
Whether, in the light of recent experience, any changes in purpose, character, scope and location of the Fair are called for.
It rather looks from this as though the recommendations of the earlier expert committee were to be completely ignored, because the President of the Board of Trade has, I am sure, had submitted to him by his officials the Warner Committee Report, 1921, the Chelmsford Committee Report, 1930, and the Report of the Ramsden Committee, which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand). I cannot help but hazard a guess that the President himself has been worried about losing his reputation of being leader of the Tory Reform Group, that he had to find a way of breaking with tradition, and that this was the only possible way. I am disappointed in the right hon. Gentleman.
The second term of reference was:
Whether it is desirable and practicable that responsibility for the organisation and administration of the Fair Should be assumed in full, or in part, by industrial and commercial interests; and if so, to recommend on what basis this should be done.
If that term of reference had been given to politicians, I am sure that none of us would let down our own calling, and that we should say that politicians could do it better than others. Likewise, businessmen would be letting down their own group if they suggested that they could not do it better than a Government Department. Therefore, I submit that this was an unfair point to give them for consideration.
Thirdly, there were the general aspects of the Fair, including the amount which should be spent on advertising. There is no doubt that more money should be spent on advertising. Every President of the Board of Trade has known it and every business man knows it. The limiting factor has always been the Treasury. If it has wanted to make cuts of any kind, it has always looked to the advertising of the British Industries Fair or to something similar. So it is the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman to


fight his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not to put that responsibility on to the Committee.
Turning to the Report of the Ramsden Committee, the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the most important point. The Report said:
The overriding aim of the Fair is a national one…the promotion of United Kingdom trade in general and of our export trade in particular.
The Goodale Committee Report, in page 4, paragraph 6, said:
…its primary purpose should be to promote trade, either directly or indirectly, at home as well as overseas since the two are interdependent.
I am sure that the Minister of State, Board of Trade, and the right hon. Gentleman have had business men coming to their offices and saying, "We cannot export unless we have a broad-based market." The business men have always put the emphasis upon that point. I admit that they are right, but the economic conditions of the country demand emphasis upon the export trade all the time. The Ramsden Committee did that, whereas the Goodale Committee has not done it, so I submit that the Ramsden Committee Report should have been more thoroughly considered than it has been.

Mr. Amory: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but paragraph 15 of the Goodale Report says:
It is, or should be, a British 'national-shop window,' to which home and, above all, overseas buyers…are invited to come…
It put the emphasis on that.

Mr. Bottomley: We can put whatever interpretation we like upon it, but I do not accept that.
The first point made by the Ramsden Committee Report was that exports came first, whereas the Goodale Committee, after making its recommendation in the earlier paragraph, went on to generalise. So there is not the same emphasis as there ought to be on the need for exports, and my view is that the basis of the British Industries Fair should be a direct method of promoting exports. Its primary purpose should be the renewal of old contacts with overseas customers and the fostering of new ones. That is fundamental to a Fair of this kind if it is to succeed, as we all hope it will.
The Goodale Committee says that the success of a trade fair depends more than anything else on the way it is managed. I agree. Let us see how it has been managed. The British Industries Fair was started in 1915. It had the right goods in the window to exhibit, but the representatives of organisations like that of the right hon. Gentleman, for reasons of their own, decided not to take part in it. I was Secretary for Overseas Trade from 1947 to 1951 and the first exhibition for which I had Ministerial responsibility was in 1948 when 14,333 people went to the Fair. In 1949, the figure was 17,061; in 1950, it was 19,005; in 1951, it was 19,266.
Then, because of the failure of the Government to give this matter the most urgent attention, the Minister was changed three times and no Minister can run a Department effectively without being well grounded in it. I think the right hon. Gentleman is doing his best, and as long as he is kept there and allowed to get on with the job, he will do extremely well. Without continuity, however, we cannot expect good results, and this is reflected in the figures because, whereas in 1951 there were 19,266 visitors, in 1952 there were 13,246 and in 1953 12,627. So there was a decline due to the lack of concentration and effort on the part of those in charge of the Board of Trade.

Mr. William Shepherd: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what the average figures were before the war?

Mr. Bottomley: I have not got those figures but I think in 1915, when the Fair started, that the attendance was 2,000 or 3,000.

Mr. Nabarro: That was in war-time.

Mr. Bottomley: Certainly, the 1939 attendance did not come anywhere near these figures. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to argue that they were higher before the war, he is wrong.

Mr. Shepherd: It is just that I have an inquiring mind.

Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps the Minister can give those figures to the hon. Gentleman.
As to whether we are judging it on the numbers of overseas visitors or on the


number of exhibitors, it is not correct that the exhibitors were falling in number also, because if that were the case the report in the "Star" yesterday was inaccurate. It said:
A larger percentage of new exhibitors will show at this year's Fair than at any other Fair since the war, and applications for stand space are still being received every day.
I know from experience that we had to turn away exhibitors, so, if this is a true report, it indicates clearly that not only on the side of overseas visitors has the Department been falling down on the job, but that it ought to be improving in that respect. It is not right of the Minister to say that there are not sufficient applications if this newspaper report is correct.

Mr. Amory: What I said is broadly true, measured either in terms of space or total numbers. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the wording carefully, he will find that it can be reconciled with what I have said. The overall demand for space is not as great as it was a year or two ago.

Mr. Bottomley: It is not for me to come between the statement and the conscience of the right hon. Gentleman. I accept what he says and I shall not develop it further.
The Goodale Committee Report says that the London section suffers from two serious handicaps. I would say that it suffers from more than two, but I will deal only with the two mentioned in the Report. The first reference is to
the discontinuity of management which is inherent in Civil Service methods of staff promotion…
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that for many years a Mr. Moore was in charge of the Department. If the right hon. Gentleman has not heard of him, I suggest that he consult industry generally. Mr. Moore did a remarkable job and was there continuously. Why could not another person be found to carry on in the same way?
Anyhow, if the Minister accepts that argument, what about the Post Office? Will he argue that because it is not competent it ought to be given to a public corporation? And what about the Export Credits Guarantee Department? Would he suggest that, for the reason put forward by the sub-committee, consideration

should be given to changes there? I am sure he would not. Then why is he so anxious to accept the Goodale Committee Report when it makes similar recommendations?
The second argument is that Civil Service methods of administration, for reasons of public accountability, tend to be less flexible and more costly than would be necessary for a commercial organisation. I question that. Some of the friends of the right hon. Gentleman will do so, because I gather that an agitation is being built up inside the party about grants-in-aid. I shall not go into the arguments that can be advanced, but one or two hon. Members opposite have expressed themselves strongly, including the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse).
We, as Members of the House of Commons, must always be conscious that, however small the amount of money, we cannot forgo the fact that public accountability is vital. Once we let go of that we are on the slippery slope and we may find that the public is having its money spent without the real accountability for which the House holds a responsibility and for which we as individual Members must take our share of the blame.
If the proposition about a public corporation is made because of the losses that have been incurred by the Fair, I would say that that is not a very sound argument. It is admitted that there has been a profit during the last two years. I think that the figure was about £2,000 last year and it was probably the same this year. Therefore, this is not the time to put forward the argument that a loss is being incurred. If the Fair is making a profit, it may continue to do so and we ought to hold on.
Of course, there is a contrast between London and Birmingham. The two centres are entirely different. It is inevitable that the Birmingham Fair should make a profit. If it did not, then it would not be a well-run organisation, Let us consider why. The Birmingham Fair has a permanent home with every convenience for management and staff. It has an administrative centre, and another important factor is that the Fair is open to the general public Everybody goes; it is the popular thing to do.
If we want it merely as an exhibition of that kind, well and good, but we come back to the Ramsden Committee which puts the emphasis on exports. In the London Fair attendance is limited to certain times to make sure that the buyers have the Fair to themselves so that they can buy the goods which we want to sell both overseas and at home. There is that difference.
There is also the fact that London has no permanent centre. Originally, the Fair was held at the Royal Agricultural Hall. Then we put it in the Victoria and Albert Museum and, later, it was transferred to a large warehouse in London Docks. Then it went to the White City. I am glad to say that it was the Labour Government, in 1929, who first saw the benefit of continuity. They took over Olympia on a ten-year lease, and the Fair has been carried on there and at Earls Court since the war.
But there have been post-war difficulties. On one occasion I had to see the chairman of a leading insurance company to beg him to use his influence as a substantial shareholder to compel one of the exhibition halls to be leased to enable the Board of Trade to carry on the Fair. Anyone working under those conditions finds it extremely difficult. Is it to be wondered that there have been losses?
I say in all seriousness that if the Birmingham Fair had had to be run under similar conditions, it would have closed down long ago. My judgment is that we have not, as a whole, been doing all that we could to help the Board of Trade to run the Fair. It is a matter of personal judgment. I do not think that a corporation will be the best organisation to make sure that the Fair is a success in future. What is important is that trade and industry should prosper. We should provide the best possible shop window. There is no difference between us. The emphasis is to attract the overseas buyer.
I should like to see more serious consideration given by the President of the Board of Trade to some of the suggestions in the Ramsden Report. We should have a great exhibition centre in London, with its own administrative offices. I agree that we should have similar centres elsewhere if they can be justified. I would not interfere with the one at Birmingham. If we could have a great centre in London

with a permanent exhibition hall, with suitable centres to hold all the sectional exhibitions held in London, we should have not only a permanent home and administrative centre but a place where overseas visitors could go and where they could be provided with information services and the necessary comforts. That would be an attraction to them to come to see the exhibition centre. Not only could it be used for the Fair, but it could be used throughout the year. There are many exhibitions for which the promoters have to search all over London to find suitable accommodation.
We feel that we are justified in putting down the Amendment. The Government have not been broad enough in their conception. I urge the President of the Board of Trade to give serious consideration to the question whether he thinks that his Department is doing everything possible not only for exhibitions but for British trade and industry as a whole.

4.36 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I was most relieved to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) say, towards the end of his speech, that he was not proposing that any change should be made with regard to the Birmingham branch of the British Industries Fair. I must say that I do not quite understand how he can square that statement with the terms of the Amendment which says:
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill the main proposals of which involve a departure from the considered policy of the Ramsden Committee…
I imagined from that that the right hon. Gentleman would take his stand on the Report of the Ramsden Committee. It was their clear recommendation to paragraph 16 that the British Industries Fair should be concentrated in one centre. I honestly think that the right hon. Gentleman in his speech did not sufficiently consider just why it is that the Birmingham branch of the Fair has worked so well during the last few years and so much more successfully than the London branch.
There are two points in particular that we ought to remember. The first is that no fewer than 25 per cent, of the stands at Castle Bromwich, the location of the Birmingham branch, remain up from year


to year and are never dismantled. The second, which is even more important, is that there is the closest liaison between the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and business men in the Midlands area.
I have had many instances since I have had the honours of representing Birmingham in this House which have shown me just how admirably the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce does its job. If one happens to try, as I have been trying recently, to make preparations for some appeal, the Chamber of Commerce can tell one everything about each business in the conurbation of the Midlands. It is that mutual give and take and confidence and trust that exists between the Chamber of Commerce and Midland business men which has, more than anything else, been responsible for the success of the Birmingham branch of the British Industries Fair during the last few years.
Unfortunately, there has not been so much business confidence and interest in the London branch of the Fair. I will not attempt to speculate today just why that is so, but the facts are undeniable. If one looks at the figures for the last few years of the area actually let in terms of square feet at British Industries Fairs in London, one sees that in 1948, for example, over 550,000 square feet were let, and that last year only about 430,000 square feet were let. That is a somewhat alarming statistic which shows that it is proving more difficult year by year to let as much space as the London branch of the Fair would like.
In those circumstances, I feel that my right hon. Friend has made a perfectly correct decision in accepting the recommendations of the Goodale Report. The point which impresses me more than anything else is that there is a very good chance that the projected company, which will be managed by business men, will be more successful in enlisting the support of industry than the Exhibition Branch of the commercial section of the Board of Trade has proved to be.
My right hon. Friend has made a correct decision and I certainly give him my fullest support, but I feel that there is something in the criticism that Clause 2 gives him rather too much of a blank cheque. It is right that we should not attempt to decide precisely how much the

Board of Trade, with the approval of the Treasury, should grant to the new company for defraying the cost of advertising, particularly overseas advertising. But I put it to my right hon. Friend Clause 2 is a little too wide in its scope and that there might be something to be said for imposing an upper limit beyond which the Board of Trade could not go, or for requiring that each annual grant shall be made in the form of a Resolution requiring an affirmative vote in the House.
As drafted, the Bill simply says:
The Board of Trade may…from time to time make to the Company, towards defraying expenditure incurred or to be incurred…grants of such amounts and on such conditions…as the Board…may determine.
That is really too much of a blank cheque, and I hope that, before the Bill leaves us, my right hon. Friend will agree to an Amendment to limit the amount which the Board of Trade can grant.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The grants are subject to the approval of the Treasury, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is a very good brake.

Sir E. Boyle: I see the force of the right hon. Gentleman's point. For all that, I am afraid that I have what may appear to be an unreasoning suspicion of blank cheques in any form. While I think it is right that these grants should be made, particularly to defray the cost of overseas advertising, which must be considered as part of our export efforts, I should be happier if an upper limit was provided.
I support the Bill, and I am very relieved to find that the remarks made from the Opposition Front Bench indicate that there is no intention in any part of the House to interfere with the Birmingham branch of the British Industries Fair, which has proved so conspicuous a success during the last few years.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: I do not want to take part in discussion about the geographical merits of the two Exhibitions. My opinion is that the Birmingham section has done a good job and should be left alone. The Exhibition has been a credit to the people who have run it.
I want to address my remarks to another aspect on the subject. In its


summary of recommendations, the Goodale Report states:
The British Industries Fair, the primary purpose of which should be a 'national shop window'…
In the next paragraph it says:
The British Industries Fair should be more than a trade fair; it should project British industry on the world and be a pageant of the best in British industry.
The two sections off the Fair are quite different and require different methods and should be given different consideration. I believe that, with certain qualifications, the President of the Board of Trade is on the right lines in what he is doing. By and large, the Birmingham Exhibition is a metal exhibition, and it goes well into the capital goods industries. The London Exhibition is subject to vicissitudes of fashion to which the Birmingham is not subject. In the case of London, the matter of whether or not people shall exhibit is more important than it is at Birmingham. A sudden change in fashion can mean that a firm may decide that it would be better for it not to exhibit that year but to wait another year when it might exhibit on a more substantial scale. These factors ought to be in the mind of the President in any action which he takes in connection with the exhibitions.
At the time of the last exhibition, a Canadian importer proposed to visit this country to buy cloth. At Toronto and Montreal he made inquiries about the duration of the Fairs, the way to get here, where he should stay and what he should do about visiting the two Fairs when he got here. In the B.E.A. offices at Montreal and Toronto not a single bit of information was available to the Canadian business man who wished to come over here to buy my cloth. Why was that? Does no one take any interest in the projection of British industry overseas?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): Did the hon. Gentleman refer to B.E.A.?

Mr. Rhodes: I meant B.O.A.C.
My next point concerns the opportunity which exists at either of the Fairs for exhibitors to make contacts by means of circulars letters to prospective customers overseas. There is a maker of textile machinery who has been trying during

the last few months to sell his products in South America. He found that this year he was selling only one-tenth of what he sold last year. He attributed that to German competition, and so on. He decided to go to South America to investigate the situation. I will not mention which country it was, but I will give the President the information privately if he desires it.
The manufacturer went to the British Embassy there and asked for information about the contacts which were necessary to enable him to interest the South Americas in his machines. Could he get the information from the Embassy? Not a bit of it! Does the right hon. Gentleman know where he got it? He got it from the French Embassy. When the President is considering matters in terms of advertising our goods in this way, he must bear in mind the overseas aspect if British industry is to be projected throughout the world in the correct manner. I have always held the view that out dual system of trade representation overseas is all wrong.
I have another illustration. The President knows that last year I was called in about the matter of the purchase of cotton for Lancashire. There was some question why Lancashire was not buying cotton from a certain country. I happened to be in that country in January and February last year, and my job was to convince the governor of the country's national bank that the reason why Lancashire was not buying cotton was not that the British Government were unkindly-minded. To cut a long story short, I convinced the governor, but it could have been done, and should have been done, by our representative on the spot if he had had the economic facts with which he ought to have been armed. He confessed that he did not know, and on my return, after paying several visits to both the national bank and the various Ministries there, I had put down on paper for him in detail what the arguments were.
What is the use of having a Fair in this country for the purpose of attracting customers from overseas if we have not sufficient staff overseas to give such potential customers the necessary information about the Fair? I looked all over that city for some evidence of the trade fair that was to be held in this country


only a month or two afterwards. Not one single bit of evidence did I see either in the Embassy, in the Chancellory or in the office of the plenipotentiary, or whatever he is called.
I ask the President of the Board of Trade to see that representations are made by his Department to the Foreign Office with a view to stirring them to some action in the matter, so that there may be some co-ordination between what he is trying to do under this Bill and through the Fair and what the trade generally are trying to do, so that the whole matter does not come to nought.
I think that we can trust Sir Ernest Goodale and his colleagues to put up the export side of it sufficiently strongly, because my dealings with him have always convinced me that he has the welfare of the export trade of this country well hi front of him all the time.
The President of the Board of Trade read out a list of representatives from all kinds of associations and organisations. Has he one from any transport organisation, such as B.O.A.C., B.E.A.C. or the shipping lines? I ask this because the last recommendation made about the date of the Fair plays a very important part, and will do so increasingly as time goes on.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that during the last year or two cheap out of season fares have been introduced by the airlines and the shipping companies for travel to America at certain times of the year. There should be close liaison between the airlines and the shipping companies to see if such facilities could be extended to overseas visitors coming here for trade purposes. Would it not be a good thing to have on this advisory committee the very people who are going to bring customers to this country and thus help us to sell our goods?

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Within the general ambit of the desire of hon. Members in all parts of the House to encourage production, to stimulate exports and to assure for the British Industries Fair in both of its principal centres a healthy and successful future, there is, of course, a good deal of room for legitimate difference of opinion.
I wish, at the outset, to deal, not entirely in disagreement, with one or two comments made by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). It is the fact that exhibitions in all the industrialised countries of the world depend for their success in large measure, upon two important factors. The first is the advertising and the publicity that is provided in support of them, and the second is the transportation arrangements that are made.
The British Industries Fair has been well advertised during the course of the last few years. It has been well publicised in traditional British markets as elsewhere, and has become very well known, notably in Western Europe. But I suggest that a very much greater effort in this connection will be needed during the next few years. Between 1945 and 1950 Britain's engineering industry, for example, had virtually no competition at all from Western Germany, and Britain's textile industry had virtually no competition at all from Japan, whereas today both our traditional and principal trading adversaries, Germany and Japan, are back in the full spate of competition with this country.
A few months ago, I had an opportunity to compare the methods being employed by the western Germans in connection with one of their exhibitions and the methods being employed by the British Industries Fair. The Germans—I speak of the West Germans—had gone to the trouble of carrying out a form of market research in this country and had posted to every British industrial company employing more than about 20 men and women a very nicely illustrated brochure, with full supporting documents, to attract British industrialists and buyers to their fair. The fair to which I refer was that held at Düsseldorf in the Rhineland, and I shall return to it in greater detail in a moment. It is difficult to give a literal translation in English of the title of the fair, but the German title was "Alle Sollen Besser Leben."
The name of that exhibition was spread throughout British industry by countless pamphlets, and very great publicity was given to its arrangements. It drew to the Ruhr tens of thousands of men and women engaged in British industry, who went there with a view to observing and


ascertaining the progress made in the rebuilding of German industry during the few years since the end of the war, and the quality and price of a vast range of German products. Advertising will be much more important to the British Industries Fair in the future in view of intense overseas competition, than it has been in the immediate post-war years.
The second point I wish to make is a counterpart to what the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne had to say in regard to transport. He spoke of special rates and facilities for overseas buyers coming to this country by B.O.A.C., B.E.A.C., and similar airlines. I want to say something about transport arrangements within Britain.
We have accepted the principle that the Fair should continue on the basis of having the engineering, hardware, building and electrical goods sections at Castle Bromwich, near Birmingham, and textiles and other manufactured goods at Olympia. Communications between the two places are nothing like as good as they should be. It is often a very difficult matter indeed for a foreign visitor to find his way from Olympia into the heart of London, then from London to New Street, or Snow Hill station in Birmingham, by train, and thence by motor coach to Castle Bromwich.
Last year, an effort was made to run trains directly between the two centres. Those trains were neither clean enough nor fast enough; nor were they provided with the sort of facilities I should wish a foreign buyer of British engineering goods to enjoy in this country. The French are running their trains between Paris, Dijon, Marseilles and the Mediterranean coast at up to 150 miles an hour, a new record announced in the newspapers last week.

Mr. Henry Usborne: One train.

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, one train al that speed, but—

Mr. M. Follick: One experimental train.

Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my sentence without yapping at me I would say that it is a regular occurrence for trains running south from Paris to travel at speeds in excess of 90 miles an hour, between Paris

and Dijon, and last week one train travelled at a record speed of 150 miles an hour. That is a very different matter from taking two hours and 45 minutes to travel between London and Birmingham, to which time must be added the 45 minutes to get from the centre of Birmingham to Castle Bromwich and another 45 minutes to get from the centre of London to Olympia. It makes a very great deal of difference.
What I want to see, and what I am certain the autonomous Corporation to be created will carry in mind is the need for a two-hour direct express train service from Olympia Station to Castle Bromwich Station, with new rolling stock, with excellent restaurant and buffet car facilities provided on the train, with cheap day return tickets, with a single class, which should be first-class, throughout. After all, foreigners seeking to buy our goods can well afford the few extra shillings that the first-class facilities cost. That in itself should be a very real incentive to business men to travel between those two important centres.

Mr. Follick: Could it not be solved very easily by having coaches running from Olympia directly to the Exhibition at Castle Bromwich?

Mr. Nabarro: Does the hon. Gentleman mean motor coaches?

Mr. Follick: Yes.

Mr. Nabarro: Certainly not. Much too slow.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has ever seriously tried driving from Castle Bromwich on the outskirts of the Birmingham conurbation, down the A5 road to St. Albans, and then through Barnet to Olympia. I often drive that route twice a week, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that driving between those two points, driving a 30 h.p. car—and I am no slow driver—takes 3½hours. By coach it would take much longer, whereas a fast direct train service need take only two hours. The hon. Gentleman, of course, is living in the last century.
Let me say something about the comparative methods of holding exhibitions overseas, say, in West Germany and in this country. I can claim a little experience in this matter, having been


concerned with exhibitions at Castle Bromwich for many years past, notably in engineering undertakings. We in this country are concentrating on two things, on selling our goods abroad, and, to support the export trade, on increasing consumer demand in the United Kingdom. There is an interesting reference to this in the Goodale Report which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to, at the foot of page 10, which, I think, fairly sums up what is the attitude of British industry towards exhibition work at the present time. That is not broad enough, however.
I referred just now to an exhibition last year at Dusseldorf, which made a profound impression on my mind. It was much broader based than our British Industries Fair. The West Germans were not only trying to export their goods. They were not only trying to increase the demand for their goods in West Germany. They were trying, also, to do two other things at the same time. They were trying to impress the German worker with the fact that only by increasing the tempo of production could a higher standard of living be achieved, through cheaper costs to himself and to overseas buyers. Also, they sought not only to attract industrial buyers. They wanted virtually the whole of the consuming public to go and see what West German industry was capable of providing.
I was profoundly impressed because built into that exhibition at Dusseldorf were several complete production units. A complete production unit that had been lifted out of the workshop and put into the middle of this vast industrial fair. One of those production units was making industrial clothing—dungarees—with the latest type of German machine tools at an incredible pace of production. The other production unit was making a standard type of men's and women's footwear. The interest that was aroused among the thousands of visitors by observing those two production units and the latest machine tools in operation was immense.
Spread all around the hall was the picturesque slogan, fully supported pictorially and graphically, to which I just now referred, "Alle sollen besser leben."
A higher standard of living for all can be achieved through lower production costs; a higher rate of output, a higher production tempo, on the part of everybody engaged in the production team. That is as good as trying to make a direct sale of an article to a foreign buyer. Just as good, if one can impress upon everybody engaged in industry that he will not work himself out of a job by a higher tempo of production, but that lower costs mean lower prices and increased opportunities for sales, and a higher standard of living.
The creation of an autonomous corporation, which this Bill proposes, to conduct the affairs of the British Industries Fair is an infinitely preferable arrangement, to continuing to allow a Government Department to administer the Fair. The mentality of the Civil Service is well suited to briefing my right hon. Friend for his introductory speech today. I have a very healthy regard for the Civil Service, but I do not believe that the Civil Service is the right instrument, in the harshly competitive times in which we live, with all the energy and vitality of the resuscitated economies in Germany and Japan, to conduct the affairs of a great commercial enterprise such as the British Industries Fair.
I make one final point. London is very well equipped with hotels.

Mr. Follick: Not very well.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman's tastes may be a little more lavish than mine. He may prefer first-class hotels in New York or Paris or Brussels or Copenhagen to anything he may find in London. I do not. I like British hotels, and I think that London hotels are among the best in the world.

Mr. Follick: They are still badly equipped.

Mr. Nabarro: I beg to differ. They are not badly equipped. Neither does the foreigner think so.

Mr. Follick: Of course he does.

Mr. Nabarro: Where we are very badly equipped with hotels is in the City of Birmingham. There is no major industrial city in this country that is so badly served by hotels as the City of Birmingham. We are seeking to attract to the British Industries Fair at Birmingham


visitors from abroad, and Birmingham is the centre of an industrial conurbation, as was emphasised by my own Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), for whom I vote at General Elections. It is extraordinarily badly served by hotels, and foreign buyers are being driven away from Birmingham. They even desist from coming to Birmingham, they are put off from coming to Birmingham, by the dearth of first-class hotel accommodation there.
I suggest that a plan to build a first-class hotel in Birmingham, which was shelved in 1939, a plan to erect a large hotel, primarily to attract overseas visitors, in Colmore Row, Birmingham, should be revived. My right hon. Friend, once this Corporation is established, should seek by every means in his power to impress upon the corporation running the British Industries Fair the fact that many foreign buyers will not visit Birmingham unless they are provided with good hotel accommodation. The Government should without further delay grant whatever licences may be necessary to the commercial enterprise that may wish to run a new first-class hotel in Birmingham.
I commend the Bill to the House. It is a step in the right direction. I wish the autonomous corporation that is to run the Fair every success, and I know that hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House will join with me in saying that we should, by all means at our disposal, encourage the success of the British Industries Fair, both at Castle Bromwich and at Olympia, in the years ahead.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has said a great deal about things that are not in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill about the shortage of hotels in Birmingham. There is nothing in the Bill which empowers the Treasury to lend money to the British Industries Fair, Ltd., to build hotels in Birmingham. There is nothing in the Bill about the hon. Member's motoring exploits or about speed or danger. Indeed, he said very little about the proposal in the Bill, which is to transfer responsibility for the management of the British Industries Fair from the Board of Trade to the body specially created for the purpose.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member did not have the benefit of listening to my right hon. Friend's opening speech. Had he done so, and also to that of the Opposition Front Bench, he would realise that this Bill implements in a large measure the proposals of the Goodale Report, and if he reads the terms of reference of the Committee he will recognise that all the matters I raised come within the terms of reference of that Committee.

Mr. Houghton: The hon. Gentleman, not content with criticising the British Industries Fair, now turns and criticises me.

Mr. Nabarro: Certainly.

Mr. Houghton: I was unhappily unable to be present for the larger part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but I was here for the whole of the speech of my right hon. Friend. I hold in my hand the Goodale Report, which I studied closely. I think I am right in saying that the hon. Member devoted very little of his speech to the contents of the Bill. I am not saying for a single moment that what he said was not interesting, and I am not saying that the suggestions which he made were not worth attention by the management of the British Industries Fair, whether it is a Government Department or a certain company.
We are agreed on both sides of the House that, above all, we want the British Industries Fair to be a success. Whether it is managed in one way or another, the supremely important requirement is that it should succeed in the job that it has to do. The question that arises on this Bill is whether the management of the B.I.F. can continue successfully and satisfactorily to be undertaken by the Board of Trade, or whether responsibility should be transferred to the British Industries Fair, Ltd. This Bill deals with certain financial arrangements in connection with the proposed new company. It authorises the company to borrow and it also provides for grants to be made by the Treasury towards certain purposes in connection with the management of the B.I.F.
The main reason I intervened in this debate was to criticise what I think is the undesirable bias upon which this proposal is made, and that is bias against


the Civil Service. The hon. Gentleman, in the few remarks that he made which were appropriate to the Bill, said that he did not think a Government Department was a satisfactory instrument for running a fair, especially in these days of keen competition, where initiative, virility and enterprise were necessary in order to push the sales of British products in the markets of the world.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Houghton: The hon. Member frequently makes noises in this House which remind me of a contented cow. There is nothing outside the dairy that can compare with the sort of thing that we listen to from the hon. Gentleman. If he will content himself for a few moments I will proceed to unfold what I have to say about the Civil Service.
It is a slur on the Civil Service to suggest that it is lacking in enterprise, in initiative, in drive and in imagination. I have frequently said that one of the conditions of democracy is the constant challenge to bureaucracy. That I hold to be true, but I believe it is a bad thing for the public service if there is to be against it a constant and steadily growing bias, and the legend that it has peculiar and cumbersome methods and is lacking in the qualities of enterprise which are necessary to run business affairs.
Where does business go when it wants really good people? When the London, Midland and Scottish Railway wanted a highly competent administrator it went to Josiah Stamp, who was not only a civil servant but a tax inspector. When a chief for the British Transport Commission was needed, where did the Government of the day go? To the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who had been Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Transport for a number of years. When Imperial Chemical Industries wanted the next chairman and also desired to appoint a young and coming man as vice-chairman, where did they go? To Stanley Paul Chambers, who is now launching the tremendously big, new financial development in Imperial Chemical Industries.
Where do many commercial undertakings go when they want to learn something about the latest improvements

in methods, organisation and management? They go to the Organisation and Methods Division of the Treasury, and the people who are in the O.M. Division have a great deal more to teach business than business has to teach them. We must challenge the underlying assumption right away of this Report and of the few brief remarks in the speech of the hon. Member that there is a deficiency in the public service in managing and undertaking an enterprise of this kind.
The truth is that it is only in the public service that we can find managers for large enterprises. By and large outside the public service few people have the experience and knowledge of large undertakings. Another thing was found in connection with the railways service. That service never produced administrators. It produced operators and when it wanted administrators it had to come to the public service.
On page 6 of the Goodale Report we read of two serious handicaps which, it says, arise from the management of the B.I.F. by the Board of Trade. I am referring to paragraph 12. Here is the first one:
…the discontinuity of management which is inherent in Civil Service methods of staff promotion…
Are there no inherent difficulties in the methods of staff promotion in business? Is there any guarantee that we shall have no more continuity of management in the British Industries Fair Ltd. than we have in the public service? Cannot the Board of Trade adjust its promotion machinery and employment of its officers to retain them continuously or sufficiently long in a position of management and avoid the interruption of the continuity of management which is referred to here?
I regard this criticism as absolutely footling. It just is not worth serious consideration. In outside business, managers will die, they will go overseas, they will seek new appointments more responsible and more remunerative probably, and I do not see that with all the resources of the Board of Trade there need have been or need be any difficulties of the kind mentioned in paragraph 12 (a).
Secondly, the Report mentions
Civil Service methods of administration, which for reasons of public accountability, tend to be less flexible and more costly than would be necessary for a commercial organisation.


But we find from the salary lists of Government Departments that most of the people employed in the Civil Service are earning chicken feed compared with the scale of salaries and expenses which it is customary to give to business men in positions of comparable responsibility.
I say without fear of contradiction that whoever manages the British Industries Fair under B.I.F. Ltd. will receive a great deal more money than anybody ever received for doing it for the Board of Trade. As for the suggestion that the methods of administration are more costly, there may be a little more care in Government Department expenditure than there is in a business house but surely, once more, the necessary flexibility can be brought into the organisation of a Government Department which is responsible for managing an essentially industrial undertaking.
Then paragraph 25 (c) makes a really most unfortunate reference. It states:
A public corporation managed by business men would be more likely to enlist the support of industry for the Fair than seems possible at present under Civil Service management.
That is a suggestion in the whole of this Report about which I complain. The Report assumes an unwillingness on the part of business men to co-operate with Government Departments. Here is the anti-Civil Service bias creeping into the whole approach to the British Industries Fair. That is to be deplored. There is no evidence in the Report of any of the things to which the Committee refers as criticisms of continuing the management of the Fair under the Board of Trade. If this change is to take place, let it take place in an atmosphere of good will and appreciation of what the Board of Trade has done. Let us not permit it to take place in an atmosphere in which additional strength is given to the bias against public administration.
I do not believe that business men are half as clever as they think they are. I do not believe that business men have anything like the imagination or flexibility of mind that they think they have. In fact, most business men that I have met—and the higher up one goes the more it seems to be the case—are singularly lacking in general intelligence. Many of them have developed what I might call a vocational ability, but that does not really spring from any intellectual development or

broad view of administration or business enterprise. It is essentially a narrow slant on the affairs with which they have to deal.

Sir William Darling: It gets there.

Mr. Houghton: The Civil Service can get there if given the chance.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that private enterprise business, which the hon. Member is disparaging, is responsible for paying the Civil Service? The Civil Service and the Inland Revenue would not be there at all wore it not for the tens of thousands of enterprising business men who pay their wages.

Mr. Houghton: None of us would be here at all were it not for each other. We are all surely making a mutual contribution, and most of us owe our existence here to our mothers and fathers, anyhow.

Sir W. Darling: Not some, but all of us.

Mr. Houghton: We are having swift confirmation of the criticism I made a few moments ago of the mentality of business men.
I regret that this change in the management of the B.I.F. is to take place in the atmosphere of the Goodale Report. When the hon. Member for Kidderminster extols the virtues of business and says how much we owe to it, let us bear in mind what this Bill proposes to do. It is to give business a very substantial sum of money to run this Fair. Business men are not going to do it out of the resources of industry. Oh no, they are coming to the much maligned source of national revenue for a substantial grant. They are asking for £100,000 over a period of a few years. In any case, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) pointed out earlier, they will have to go to the Treasury naturally for the grants provided for them under the Bill.
They will have to satisfy the conditions laid down by the Treasury. That is quite reasonable in the circumstances, because British Industries Fair Limited wants public money and wants to get it away from the rigidities and public accountability which business men criticise inside the public service. In other words, these


people want to spend the money without having such close scrutiny as might be necessary if the money were spent by Government Departments. This House, surely, has it in its power to look with a different eye on expenditure by Government Departments for the B.I.F. from that which it casts on public expenditure on a new set of forms in a particular Department or on a new venture of some other kind. Expenditure lies in the power of this House and the scrutiny which is applied to it is undertaken by an officer appointed to this House and by Committees appointed and manned by this House.
So I really do not see that there is anything very much in the suggestions made in the Report, upon which this Bill is based, that it is necessary to transfer the management of the British Industries Fair to this new company to give it the sort of boost and freedom and scope for imagination and enterprise which undoubtedly it should have if it is to compare favourably with fairs which are held in other countries. For these reasons I criticise the Bill, I criticise the Goodale Report and I support the Amendment in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I am sure that the House has listened with interest to the spirited defence of the Civil Service by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I can well imagine that the hon. Member has been saving up this outburst against the intellectual level of the business man during the years that he spent in the Civil Service administering the laws of this country. But I am afraid that he has got it all wrong, and I am sure that a moment's reflection will convince him of that.
No one pretends that a business man is necessarily of a higher intellect than a member of the Civil Service, and no one imagines that a member of the Civil Service is not capable, in a different environment, of doing just as well as the business man. The difficulty lies in the fact that in the Civil Service even a man of initiative is bound by certain considerations which do not exist under private enterprise. It is not that one man is inferior or that one breed of men is superior to others, but that the conditions

under which they must necessarily operate in the Civil Service are irksome and not conducive to enterprise.
It is quite true that we have taken men out of the Civil Service and they have been outstandingly successful in business life. There is nothing unusual about that, but in the Civil Service administration there is not a satisfactory environment for industrial enterprise. It works the other way. When men have been taken out of private enterprise into the nationalised industries they have found the atmosphere there intolerable. I do not think the argument is quite as serious as the hon. Member, in his indigation, suggested. The men concerned are not superior to each other, but it is a matter of climate and environment.
In the main, I support the Measure, and I do not think that the speech of the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) indicated any fervent difference from the point of view of my right hon. Friend. After so rigid an Amendment on the Order Paper, I was surprised at the timidity of the support the right hon. Member gave it, and I think it quite certain that no Division will take place on this issue this evening.
The reason I welcome this Bill is that we want to make people in business have a sense of responsibility for the Fair. That would be a great advantage. Business men are being carried about quite a lot by Government Departments, and all sorts of organisations are set up to help business in this way and that. There is a tendency to say, "Let the other people do it," and not to take a corporate interest in these organisations. I think the Goodale Committee were right in thinking that if we can get business more interested in the Fair as a Fair we shall get more results from it.
I have been very much disappointed in the Fair in recent years. It has not had the same appeal, and I am anxious that it should revive its appeal. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) spoke of fairs in other countries. There is no doubt that they have succeeded in imparting a glamour which we in this country have not succeeded in imparting to our Fair. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the best."] It may be the best, but "the best" is a general term. In countries overseas there is much more attraction in


their fairs than we have succeeded in achieving. We want to give the Fair a new appeal to buyers from overseas and to people in this country.
What is the main difficulty about the Fair in London? I think it is definitely a matter of the building in which it is housed. We badly lack a suitable building for the Fair in London. Whilst present conditions may not be entirely favourable to doing so now, before many years we shall have to face the problem of erecting a satisfactory building for the British Industries Fair. If one goes abroad, particularly to Paris, what a contrast there is. One feels, in walking up the exhibition palace—even the temporary Palais de Chaillot—that here is something which reflects national prestige. When I have to take people from overseas to Earls Court I try to take them by a route along which they not see the outline of the building, because a more depressing spectacle never offended the eye of man. We have to face the task of providing a building for exhibition purposes which will do justice to this country.
My right hon. Friend said that it would have cost £6 million or £8 million in 1946 and would cost £10 million or £12 million now. But the cost is not the main factor. The main factor is what the building could earn. If we can erect an exhibition building of an imposing nature which will do justice to this country and let it to other exhibitors during the course of the year to earn a return for the amount invested, I would consider that a very good investment. I would not be deterred became the capital expenditure was £X million or £Y million. This is an economic proposition.
What I am afraid of is the recommendation in the Goodale Report that we should devote ourselves to the Crystal Palace. There could be no more unfortunate thought than that we should centre the activities of the British Industries Fair in the Crystal Palace. I am a stranger to London, as I come from the North and I now live on the north side of London. To me territory south of the river are desolate wastes from which no traveller returns. It would be most unfortunate for the prestige of this country if we were to concentrate our ideas on developing the Crystal Palace in this way.

Although I am sure that there are excellent purposes to which it could be devoted, this is not one.

Mr. John Taylor: I am very interested in the argument of the hon. Member. Does he think it would be a good thing to drop the suggestion that the Kelvin Hall in Glasgow, probably the best exhibition building in this country, might be considered for another wing of the British Industries Fair in future?

Mr. Shepherd: There may be a case for evolving that idea. It may well be desirable during the course of the exhibition in London simultaneously to run another exhibition in Scotland, or maybe one in Manchester. There is a case for that kind of treatment of the exhibition, but if we are to have a centre in London I am certain that it has to be worthy of this country and we certainly have not anything which is worthy at present. There is a lot of undeveloped space on the South Bank and someone has to make amends for the architecture of the Festival Hall. I was hoping that we might consider the proposition of putting up a really imposing building on the South Bank site, which would be suitable for this purpose. I think that is worth considering.
The reason there has been a falling off in exhibitors is probably due to two causes. One is that many firms are full up with work and do not want to exhibit because that takes time and interferes with their production. The other is another class of person who is not full up with work but who finds the cost of exhibiting too high. I thought the recommendation in the Goodale Report about differential space prices was an extraordinarily good one. I am sure that it would increase the total revenue and attract a number of exhibitors who, because of cost considerations, are now debarred. I am sorry that has not been taken up, but I hope that the company, when established, will look earnestly at the possibility of attracting another section of industry, at present debarred out of cost considerations, by putting into operation the differential space rates.
I am sure there is no massive difference between the two sides of the House today. As the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham said in moving


the Amendment, it is a matter of personal opinion as to whether on balance a new company will provide the sort of direction and energy which is needed. We all pay tribute to the way in which the Board of Trade officials have managed their enterprise; they have done extraordinarily well. This is a new departure. It may not prove as successful as we imagine, but I think, in view of the overall circumstances, it is worthy of a trial.
I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill, and I also hope, as I expect, that the right hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Henry Usborne: I am glad of the opportunity to participate in this debate and I should like to make a few remarks which, admittedly, will be rather at random. One could make a very long speech on this subject, but I think that I could do greater service to the House if I make only a few points.
Before I make those points, I have a personal confession which I must make, particularly in view of the fact that I am sitting directly behind my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I am one of those poor, benighted business men whom he so savagely described, and, I want to say, not inaccurately. I have myself participated in—and indeed founded—an engineering firm in the Midlands which has, over the last 10 years, exhibited on a number of occasions at the British Industries Fair.
I want to suggest that the argument that we have had between the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who attacked civil servants, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby, who so gallantly defended them, is largely irrelevant. I think it is perfectly true that civil servants can run the British Industries Fair extremely well, but I think it is also true to say that business men do not think they can. It is also true to say that most successful business men are generally politically illiterate. I think that, from the nature of a successful business, he is a genius who concentrates upon his job, and if, in fact, he spends the whole of his life concentrating on one particular job, it is not at all sur-

prising that he has not deeply studied the political world at large.

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: Would the hon. Gentleman apply his remarks to trade union leaders?

Mr. Usborne: I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion of a subject of which I have no intimate knowledge, and, in any case, it is irrelevant to the argument I am going to develop.
I want to suggest that a reason this modest little Bill is worthy of careful consideration is that there is no doubt that, in the minds of my fellow business men in Birmingham, there is a feeling that the British Industries Fair, although carried on in Birmingham on the whole pretty successfully, cannot be regarded with certainty as continuing successfully. There are all kinds of difficulties to be faced. There have not been so many overseas buyers attending the B.I.F. in the last few years; certainly in the last few years exhibitors at the B.I.F. have not received the same volume of orders as hitherto, and we are beginning to wonder what is the cause of all that.
An interesting interjection was made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster when the right hon. Gentleman was moving the Second Reading of this Bill. He was saying that 'there was apparently some lack of confidence in the running of the B.I.F., and the hon. Member for Kidderminster interjected and wanted to know whether this was because there had not been, particularly in regard to the London section of the Fair, the demand from exhibitors, or whether it was the fact that there had not, in fact, been the same amount of interest from the overseas buyers. The Minister of State replied that, as far as he knew, it was a fact that there was not the same pressure of demand from exhibitors for floor space at the Fair.
The success of the Fair is, and must be, very largely measured by the demand for space from exhibitors; in other words, it is a question of confidence of the business man in the Fair itself—a psychological factor. It has to be admitted that there is now a feeling that the B.I.F. in the last few years has not been as successful as hitherto, and there is a feeling that it might be more successful—certainly, that it might attract more


confidence from the business fraternity—if it was run by business men.
I should say that the civil servants themselves are the first to realise that a change of that kind can do no harm; it might indeed do good. In fact, the reason the B.I.F. has not been as successful in the last few years as hitherto is very largely due to world causes, and not necessarily to the handling or management of the B.I.F. itself. Let us face the fact that the reason manufacturers take space nowadays and regard the taking of that space as having been worth while is that one or other of two factors obtains.
First, they exhibit at the fair and realise that it is important so to do if they have a new model or a series of models that they are about to introduce to world public opinion; or, secondly, they have a particular desire to find agents in one or two overseas countries. If either of these causes prevails—if, in fact, they can through the B.I.F. get new agents in one or two countries in which they have had no representation or unsuccessful representation, or if they want to exhibit a new series of models—either of these things is sufficient to make them regard an exhibit at the fair as worth while, and it is always worth while if these two circumstances coincide.
The difficulty today is that to discover agents abroad is not sufficient. We want to discover agents who can overcome the quota and financial difficulties which now prevail in so many countries, and that is something which agents themselves are quite helpless to overcome. It is no longer at all easy to sell in a great many of the markets which we should like to penetrate, and it has very little to do with the B.I.F. It is a highly charged world political problem, and, somehow or other, we have to solve it, but it is not fair to blame the organisers of the Fair for that fact.
Nevertheless, if the Fair is to continue, some changes will have to be made in the management thereof, because the business fraternity—and I speak for the light engineering industries in the Midlands—have not been very happy in the past and want to see some sort of change in order to give them new confidence that the Fair will be able to carry on.
It is most important that, if the B.I.F. is continued, it should be continued flat out. The worst thing of all would be to allow it gradually to die on its feet. There must be a new injection of hope, and I believe that this Bill gives it. I think an important principle is involved, and I am very grateful to my right hon. Friends for having moved the Amendment in order that the proposal shall be carefully scrutinised.
I believe that to set up a board of directors will provide the opportunity of deciding whether the B.I.F. should be held every year. It might be desirable to hold it every three years. Secondly, the board should decide whether a separate section of the Fair might be held in another centre, such as Glasgow. These things need to be looked into, and a new form of management might be able to look at the problem afresh.
Meanwhile, this Bill provides that the Government should undertake a guarantee, but that does not necessarily involve paying out money. A guarantee up to a maximum of £100,000 is proposed, and I do not think myself that the Government would necessarily lose any of that money. I think it is necessary that we should do something to the B.I.F., because we cannot let it go on as it has been going, and I think that, on the whole, this is a fairly reasonable Bill.
It is most important that we in Parliament should watch the operation of the new corporation. Quite clearly, here is an injection of public money into a private corporation, and I think that, in the prevailing circumstances, it is necessary to do that, but, because it is being done, Parliament should watch very carefully how the money is being spent.
If the B.I.F. cannot be made to pay, it will be a great pity from the point of view of the nation as a whole. But I do not think that we ought, without the most careful scrutiny, necessarily to blame those who are directing the B.I.F., if it does not work out right and does not pay. There are many circumstances which vitiate the success of such an enterprise, and the Bill is necessary precisely because we see those difficulties, and because we cannot expect private enterprise to take risks on account of the nation as a whole without the backing of the Government. It is because there are dangers inherent in that idea that it was right and proper for the


Opposition to put down the Amendment and for it to be moved, but if we have an assurance, which I hope we shall have and for which it was proper for us to ask, I hope that my hon. Friends will, in the end, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

5.52 p.m.

Sir William Darling: This is a very important Measure, and although, in the end, it may cost us nothing at all it will be an earnest of the Board of Trade's appreciation of the selling business and the importance of exhibitions. I must not be held to believe that exhibitions are not an art in which the British are very successful. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said about the success of the British Motor Show, which, I understand, costs nothing to the Board of Trade, and is not only an exhibition of the first importance, but is a very great success.
Of course, the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has a phobia in this matter. He speaks for civil servants, and does so with eloquence, experience and knowledge. None the less, he never gives sufficient weight to the fact that for about 50 years the cream of the intelligence of this country has been taken into the Civil Service. Trade and business have to take what is left over. Anything that cannot pass the Civil Service examination is good enough to run the business of the country; persons like myself, for instance. Is it surprising that, in those circumstances, the best brains of the country, after being expensively educated, have been canalised in the Civil Service? The hon. Gentleman allows his passion to go a little far when he suggests that the Goodale Report was unfair to civil servants.

Mr. Houghton: What the hon. Member is criticising is the lack of imagination on the part of the business community in not offering sufficient incentives to attract the products of higher education into business. Business men always want their sons in the business, or elementary schoolboys to work their way up.

Sir W. Darling: That is not a very proper thing for the hon. Gentleman to say. He must not forget that private enterprise has to bear the burden of Income Tax, and that for many years the tax has been collected at 9s. 6d. in the

£. When we are told in this House that business men are not half as clever as they think they are—that was one of the dicta of the hon. Gentleman—it is time that some voice was raised, as my hon. Friends the Members for Kidderminster and Cheadle (Mr. W. Shepherd) have said, on behalf of those who carry the day-by-day burden of developing and financing the goods and services of this country, in contradistinction to those who work in a protected atmosphere all their lives, enjoying the advantages of economic security with the certainty of a pension.
I refer now to the civil servants. They belong to a class who have been largely detrimental to the development of Britain. The vigour of the United States is to some extent due to the fact that the Civil Service of that country is much less attractive than here, and that the best brains from the universities go into the workshops and the offices. If we took the best brains away from the mere administration and management of the affairs of the State, with all the backing of security that the State gives them, and allowed all that vigour and individuality to go into free enterprise, we should see a tremendous expansion of our economy, as is the case in the United States, which leads the world.
I do not think that the hon. Member needs to take this matter too sorely. We shall continue to quarrel with the Civil Service, and to find jobs for the more eminent of them when they are tired of the Service.
I note particularly that in the summary of recommendations of the Report it is recognised that the British Industries Fair is a national shop window. We should have several shop windows. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) remarked upon the importance of Glasgow and of the Kelvin Hall for the purpose of exhibitions. The idea of having exhibitions is, as the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne) pointed out, a little stale. That is due to the fact that there is public boredom with exhibitions generally. Many important products cannot be adequately seen in an exhibition. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster mentioned the exhibition at Düsseldorf, but it still remains true that many products of business cannot be seen to best advantage in an exhibition.
In Scotland, there are important engineering products which are now being visited by economists from the Commonwealth and from countries like Finland and Peru. Those products are being visited not in an exhibition hall but in situ. I refer particularly to the works in connection with the Hydro-Electric Board. The visitors see the machinery actually at work.
Exhibitions are no longer confined to Olympia and the Castle Bromwich site. There are exhibitions all over the country. I have steadily pressed my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to increase the number of those exhibitions. I have pressed, at the same time, that we should have an exhibition of first-class modern road bridges in Scotland, which would be observed by millions of people coming from all parts of the world, not in a hall, but by crossing the rivers Forth and Tay. Those are the kinds of thing which the Goodale Report envisages.
The Report says that the Corporation should be empowered to do more to develop the London section. I am referring to Item 32 (p). The determination of the corporation not to add to the complexities, difficulties and muddles of London, but to take some of these exhibitions into the free open air of the wider country is very laudable, and is a thing which we should encourage. I hope that the corporation will bear this point very much in mind.
The most grievous thing we suffer from is not the tendency of the Civil Service to overbear individuality, but the fact that nearly all the wealth of the population of these islands is among London's 15 million, crowded into this part of the country. We do not wish to add exhibitions to London, which is an exhibition itself of a sufficiently startling character. If this exhibition idea is to be carried out, as I hope it will be, let us carry it out in Birmingham, in Manchester, in Glasgow and throughout the country. We want to take people out of London and not put them into it. We want to diminish this great wen and relieve it of some of its exhibitions
The Bill is important and stimulating. I hope that the British Industries Fair will develop an exhibitions policy, not of the Olympia or Castle Bromwich type, but based on the idea that it is Britain

which is the exhibition which all the world might well come to see.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: It seemed to me that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) gave an example of Satan rebuking sin when he suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) allowed his passions to run away with him when speaking.
In my introductory remarks I want particularly to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne). He spoke, I thought, rather pessimistically of the future of the British Industries Fair. He gave me the impression that, among certain business men in Birmingham and elsewhere there may be a feeling that the Fair has served its purpose, is no longer a very great help to them and ought to be allowed to die. He very properly said, and I entirely agree, that that ought not to happen; that if we are to have a Fair we should go flat out to make it a good Fair and not let it die away gradually. It was precisely because that feeling might exist, in the minds of certain sections of industry at any rate, that it ought to disappear and was not to be relied upon as the British shop window, that I joined with my right hon. Friend when he put down this Amendment.
The President of the Board of Trade last week destroyed what I might describe as one of my offspring when he destroyed the Raw Cotton Commission. It appeared to me that in this Bill it was just possible—I will not put it higher than that—that he might have in mind a similar operation on another of my offspring, the Ramdsen Committee and its Report. I hope that I shall get it clearly from him that he does not at all share the rather pessimistic feeling which my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley seemed to express—I hope I do him no injustice—that the Fair might dwindle away. I hope that the President will deny any idea that the change from Board of Trade management to management by a corporation is a preliminary to the gradual decease of the British Industries Fair.
The Ramsden Committee very definitely took a contrary view, and it was on that part of its Report that we based our reference in our Amendment.


Although I do not quote, I think that I am summarising not unfairly when I say that the Ramsden Committee said that the regular holding of exhibitions on a national scale was an essential and indeed a focal part of the post-war export drive. It had no doubt that Her Majesty's Government should accept the responsibility for this part of the export drive. It would be silly to suggest that this is the only part, or even the major part, of the export drive, but it is definitely an essential and focal part of it.
It provides, as it were, something more than a figurehead—a prow—behind which the export drive is organised. To establish a Fair on an appropriate scale, to ensure that it was a united national effort, giving a fair show to all sections of industry and exhibitors large and small, and to ensure its continuity and appropriate linkage with exhibitions of all kinds at home and abroad, it was necessary that His Majesty's Government—as it was then—should be responsible for it. That was the report which was made to me at that time and which I accepted on behalf of the Government.
I still think that it must be regarded as an essential part of the export drive. I could not agree with anybody who suggested that there was less need for the export drive in 1953 than there was even in 1945. Better though our general circumstances are now than at the immediate end of the war, the need for exports remains quite as strong as ever it was then. Many speeches made this afternoon reinforce that view, which is shared on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), to whose speech on this occasion I listened with more patience than to some of his remarks on the Cotton Bill, showed the danger of the present situation to industry generally.
We have to ask whether it is true that we are now fighting for our life or not. On this side we believe that we are; that the present situation is dangerous—that it is necessary, as it were, to gird up the national loins for another determined and arduous export drive, as we did in 1945 when we found ourselves with an export trade just one-third of what it was before the war. There seems to be the danger, voiced in some speeches this afternoon and shown in some recent events, of a

feeling spreading in industry that the need for a real, determined, hard effort at this point is not as great as we make out.
I know that the Minister of State, Board of Trade, did say that he wanted the Fair to be the shop window, that he wanted it to be highly successful, and that he thought that industry did mean business in the export drive, but, if I may say so, he did not say it with a great deal of force or apparent conviction. Are we getting back to the pernicious doctrine, continually advanced by the Prime Minister when he was on this side of the House, that the export trade should be really the overspill from the home trade? Do Her Majesty's Government believe that or not? I hope that they will deny it.
I thought that a reply which I saw, I think yesterday, by the right hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) about a problem arising in her constituency, suggested that the Government were not now prepared to make the special efforts which used to be made to assist industry to put exports first all the time. I felt that there was a danger of their saying, "Business men know their own interest best; leave them to follow their business judgment"—as they said about the import of cotton.
That simply will not do. I know that the President of the Board of Trade is endowed by nature with great gifts of speaking forcefully. I hope that in his reply he will give a very forceful denial to any such suggestion that the Government do not realise the importance of the export trade. I shall be glad if he tells us that they wish to impress upon industry at every opportunity the need to put exports first, and to follow our course when we first invented export targets and insisted that export was not merely the overspill of a satisfied home market but was the first priority.
In view of what was said by the Ramsden Committee in its Report in 1946 and by the Goodale Committee now, I made some notes of the sort of questions which I thought the Government ought to answer. First, they should indicate their full appreciation of the importance of what I might call the Ramsden concept of the Fair as a large and important part of the spearhead of our export drive. I hope that the Minister will say something stronger than what is set out in


paragraph 6 of the Goodale Report. I was disappointed with that paragraph. I admit that it pays lip-service to the importance of the Fair, but it does not lay sufficient emphasis upon or appreciate the fact that exports should come first.
We also require something stronger than what is said in paragraph 10 on the general problem. The reference to the provision of new buildings in London is very vague. I understand that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) supported the idea of new buildings in London at an early date, but the Goodale Committee says that
…it remains a desirable objective, and developments in connection with the Crystal Palace site should be closely followed…
That is a rather vague and not very emphatic endorsement of the necessity for proper provision in London, and it soft-pedals very much by saying that in present economic conditions it is very difficult for the Government to undertake the necessary work.
There is a need for a shop window in the new conditions of a highly competitive export trade, and satisfactory premises which are always available for the purpose should be provided. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make some appreciative remarks about the need to continue contact with similar fairs and exhibitions overseas. That is, and always has been—at any rate, it was in my time—a very important part of the Exhibitions Section of the Department of Overseas Trade and, later, the Department of Export Promotions. I hope that that work will continue, and that if the Fair is handed over to a company, a section of the Board of Trade, no doubt not so large, will remain to keep in touch with all the international fairs and exhibitions.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster referred to the Dusseldorf Fair. There are many fairs of this kind which are extremely valuable for British exporters. It may be that it is not much good to show the usual run of British production in Dusseldorf, because the Germans are making the same sort of things as we are, but there are many other fairs where it does a great deal of good. Last summer I had the opportunity of inspecting the fair at Smyrna. That fair is held in a predominantly agricultural country, which wants to buy greater quantities of British manufactured goods. We ought

to know about these fairs and maintain an organisation which constantly keeps in touch with them.
One of the reasons I regret the decision to take away responsibility for the British Industries Fair from the Board of Trade is that in the Board of Trade, there are people whose responsibility it is to keep in touch with those other fairs. The suggestion that the civil servants responsible for the British Industries Fair are employed only in that work, and are, therefore, under-employed, is not true. If it were true that their sole job was to conduct a fair which lasted for three weeks—although the preparations and winding up would take many more weeks—the situation would be scandalous, because they would not be employed for more than six months in the year.
But it is not true. They have this other work to do all the time, and the people who are responsible for the management of the Fair ought also to have responsibility for world-wide contacts with other fairs and exhibitions. I hope that the President will put forward a better justification for this action than we have heard so far—certainly a better one than the Report gives for taking away the management from the Board of Trade.
Paragraph 11 of the Report says:
The conclusions and proposals which follow are based largely on the evidence of the Federation of British Industries. Similar evidence on the main principles has been received from the National Union of Manufacturers.
The word "principles" is a rather significant one to use in this connection. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) has said, it suggests that the matter was prejudged.
When the F.B.I. and the N.U.M. talk about principles of management, we know that they are in favour of allowing the management to be done by private enterprise, and when the terms of reference were so drawn as to find:
Whether it is desirable and practicable that responsibility for the organisation and administration of the Fair should be assumed in full, or in part, by industrial and commercial interests…
it looked as though the question was begged before it was answered. We should like to have a little more reassurance that this has been done not


because of some previously agreed principle but because the right hon. Gentleman is completely satisfied that he will get a more efficient administration by this means.
Are the people who are to manage the Fair in future to be exclusively employed on that job? If they are, how are they to fill in their time for 12 months in the year? Or is it intended—and there may be something to be said for this—that the whole of the Board of Trade staff which is engaged on fairs, exhibitions and promotions generally, shall be transferred to the company in order to run the whole job of overseas publicity and exhibition as well as home publicity and exhibition? I strongly repudiate—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby from his personal knowledge—any suggestion that the civil servants concerned have not been doing a full-time job to the best of their considerable ability.
We have had some reassurance as to the nature of the company. At first, I feared that it might be some new form of permutation. I can never understand permutations, but I should understand a permutation which changed B.I.F. into F.B.I., and I wondered whether that was intended, and whether the signing of the report and everything else meant that the British Industries Fair was to be handed over to the Federation of British Industries. I am not making any attack on the F.B.I., but I should not like to see this matter put exclusively into the hands of that body.
We are glad to hear that the President of the Trades Union Congress is going to take part in the general supervision of the Fair. I should have liked to see a Minister taking the chair of a new body of trustees, if not of the company. There are precedents for this. The Postmaster-General, as I know from my experience in that office, is the chairman of the Board of Governors of Chelsea Hospital. These appointments have been made in the past, and they could be made again. There is a case for a Minister without specific Departmental responsibility representing the Government and the general interests of Parliament by keeping a constant watch upon the movements of this body.
We have had some reassurance this afternoon from the Minister of State,

Board of Trade, on accountability to Parliament. I think he will understand that when we saw the Bill we found it a little difficult to discover exactly what was the measure of accountability and what would be the methods of securing it, because nearly everything is left out of the Bill and all is put into the White Paper. I must admit that the right hon. Gentleman was reassuring in what he said, but I took note of the feeling of the hon. Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), who said he did not like a blank cheque. I hope that in due course he will put down an Amendment in Committee so that we may discuss whether a maximum figure should be put into the Bill. We shall be happy to support him.
I come now to the question of Birmingham, which has been mentioned frequently. It is, of course, true that the Ramsden Committee recommended one Fair in London, with adequate buildings and upon a considerable scale. I admit that when we came to examine in full detail those possibilities we found that in modern London, with its very difficult transport problem, the provision of the whole of what is now in Birmingham and what is now in London, all together in London—and we hope the sections will grow even bigger—would be very difficult indeed, as well as being very expensive.
Experience has shown, since the Ramsden Committee, that the Birmingham Fair has a great deal of patronage and now covers such a large acreage that it is difficult to contemplate the whole of it being moved to London. We are not suggesting, this afternoon, that it should be moved to London.
As my hon. Friends have already said, we admire the Birmingham section of the Fair. I have been to it several times. I even went to it last summer at my own expense, and I am afraid I shall find it quite impossible to persuade any inspector of taxes that that visit was wholly, necessarily and exclusively concerned in the performance of my Parliamentary duties, although I think it was.
The Birmingham section is getting on well. It has one enormous advantage which a London Fair could not have—the advantage of being able to attract to the Fair the large number of workpeople who work and live in and around Birmingham. I was very much impressed


by the number of Saturday afternoon visitors to the Fair, for literally thousands of workpeople, with their families and friends, come into the Fair and have the opportunity of showing the products which they have made, on exhibition, and of seeing what other people make. That is a most valuable advantage and one which would not be very easy to obtain in London.
We do not want to press the point that the Birmingham Fair should be moved to London, but I, at any rate, want to ask a question about it. If the Government are to establish a corporation, why could it not be responsible for the whole of the Fair—for the Birmingham section in Birmingham and the London section in London, with adequate buildings provided as quickly as we can get them? If it is possible to rebuild the City of London, as is now being done, possibly this could be done at the same time, bearing in mind all the money at stake, the great importance of the British Industries Fair and its place in what I hope will be a new and vigorous export drive, led by the President of toe Board of Trade, and drawing in the other work of the Board of Trade to which I have referred—the work of encouraging British exporters to take a real interest in overseas fairs and exhibitions, to go to the exhibitions and to advertise over there. I should have thought that the new corporation would have had a worthwhile job if it could have control of the whole business.
I have asked the right hon. Gentleman a good many questions. I hope he will try to answer as many of them as he can, as well as those which have been put by other hon. Members. We shall have to decide our action in the light of what he says.

6.25 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I rise to conclude the debate on the Bill. It is a short Bill of only two Clauses and probably most of the things which can be said about those Clauses have already been said from one side of the House or the other.
I agree with what I think is the view of both the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley)

and the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), that there is no great difference between us about this matter. Personally, I should deplore anything which would tend to turn the British Industries Fair into some sort of party political matter. All of us, I think, would regard that as about the worst service we could give to the Fair and a bad service to British exports. I think both right hon. Gentlemen opposite share that view.
The right hon. Member for Middlesborough, East probably did less than justice to his hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne). I do not think the hon. Member was pessimistic about the outlook for the Fair. I do not think any of us need be pessimistic. The question we have to answer here is: what are the best steps to ensure that it will be a success?
The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham felt some parental responsibility for the Ramsden Report. He leapt to its defence like a mother to the defence of her child—a very proper emotion. Let me assure him, however, that no one has ignored the accumulated wisdom of the Ramsden Report. It was written seven years ago, and it would be a remarkable thing if, in the space of seven years, some experience had not been gained and if the three men on the Goodale Committee, who also served on the Ramsden Committee, had not had a number of fresh ideas.
The points which we have to decide this afternoon are only two. First, should we run this Fair broadly on the lines recommended by the Ramsden Report or broadly on the lines of the more recent Goodale Report? Secondly, are the financial arrangements proper arrangements. The Ramsden Report recommended that there should be one concentrated Fair, that it should be in London, that exhibition buildings should be erected at the cost of £6 million to £8 million and that the whole of it should be run by the Board of Trade. The Goodale Report recommended that we should go on with the Birmingham section and that we should go on with it for one very good reason—because it is a success, and if there is something which is successful there is a lot to be said for developing it.
The Goodale Committee pointed out that there had been some falling off in the demand for Fair space in London. In the case of London, they recommended the formation of a public company, with the directors appointed by the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers, and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce; with, I have no doubt we are all agreed, the President of the T.U.C. as well. They recommended that it should keep in close co-operation with the Government. Indeed, it must do that; it would be a very sad thing if the co-operation between the Fair and the Government broke down, because it is essential to the success of the Fair that whoever runs it should be in close touch with all the overseas officers, intelligence departments, and so on, in order that knowledge of this Fair can be widely spread throughout the world and visitors attracted to it.
In the circumstances and having considered the reports of our own advisers on this matter, we decided broadly to follow the suggestions of the Goodale Report. I think that on reflection the House will consider that we were right. These business men were appointed to advise on these matters, and they served the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham as loyally and as well as they have served me. I am not saying that industry would not co-operate in any circumstances; I think that industry would. But if we want the full co-operation of industry, there is something to be said for taking good notice of the advice of industrialists given to one in a matter concerning a Fair of intimate and great importance to themselves.
I should like to deal with a few of the points raised in the debate. The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham referred to the question of whether the demand for space had, in fact, been falling off in London. It has been falling off for a number of years, during the time that he was at the Board of Trade and during the time that I have been there. I do not think that that is a reflection on the people who were running the Fair. I think that it is a reflection on what has been going on in the world. In a sellers' market people are inclined sometimes to come to us, but in a buyers'

market we sometimes have to go to them. There is not very much that we can complain about in a matter of that kind.
The right hon. Gentleman said, and I was very pleased to hear him say it, that Birmingham has certain advantages. It has these advantages, so let us use them to the full. There are natural advantages, which are very considerable, in running an exhibition of our great engineering and capital industries in the industrial Midlands where so much of that industry is centred; but, in addition, I agree with the hon. Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), that part of the success of the Fair there is due not only to natural advantages but to the work of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. They have made a fine job of it.
My hon. Friend, in commenting on the general principles of the Bill, referred to Clause 2, and to the question of whether some upper limit should not be set upon the grants which the Board of Trade make for the purpose of overseas publicity. I think it is probably very improper to say so, but I wish a lower limit could be set. I should not resist any Amendment that was put down to that effect. I did rather agree with the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvill Hall) who once held the job of Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when he intervened and said, "The Treasury will look after that."
Right hon. Gentlemen should not imagine that it is a very simple matter to get unlimited funds made available for overseas publicity for the B.I.F. or for any other purpose. It is, however, a serious point which he raised, and I will give it consideration. The only other point I make on that is that Parliament does have control of this amount. It is carried on the Board of Trade Vote, and it is. open to challenge in the House and, very properly, is debatable upon the Estimates.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) gave three examples where people had not heard about the Fair. It was a perfectly fair point that he made. But if we are spending £100,000, or an average of £93,000 over a period of years, on overseas publicity, I do not think it would be difficult to find three people who had not heard about the Fair. I dare say that I could find three others. I am not suggesting that overseas publicity is not capable of


improvement. All overseas publicity always is capable of improvement, but I would say to him that we have concentrated particularly upon the Canadian market to which he referred.
Not only have we done so, but I think that I am right in saying that ray predecessors did so and we have concentrated on it even more. We have increased the allocation of money in that field. With regard to the airlines and B.O.A.C., they co-operate with us; loyally and have been of great help to us not only in connection with the Canadian market but throughout the world. I do not say that one could not find someone in some office who, when asked for a pamphlet or information, did not know where the pamphlet or information was, and I should be surprised if that were not so. But in our embassies, consulates and high commission offices we have made it our practice to see, months before any Fair is held, that they are given full information and all the facilities that we can make available to them to spread the knowledge of what is available at the Fair and the facilities that we have as widely as possible throughout their territory.

Mr. Rhodes: Two of the illustrations had to do with embassies. If there is anybody anywhere overseas who should know what we are doing, it is in the embassies, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay particular attention to that before the next Fair.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I should not like the hon. Gentleman to think that in replying I was not giving full consideration to his points. I can assure him, and all other hon. Members in the House, that the fullest attention will be given to the points that they have made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) raised the question of transport between London and Birmingham. He suggested that in France people travel between distances of that kind at a speed of 150 miles per hour. I cannot promise him that before the next Fair the trains between London and Birmingham will necessarily travel at that speed. But I certainly do attach considerable importance to seeing that facilities are available for travelling between the two sections of the Fair. Indeed, last

year we did make efforts to try and improve matters in that direction.
I think that the fact that Sir Arthur Smout is taking charge of the new company may be some guarantee that every effort will be made to see that the two sections are linked up. It is our idea that the new company should generally supervise the co-ordination between the two sections of the Fair. I think that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East made a particular point of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster made what I thought was a very telling point when he mentioned the relationship between sales and productivity with particular reference to the type of exhibition he had seen in Germany. I think that is a lesson that we must all learn, and we must not slacken in our efforts to emphasise it. Finally, he asked me why no one can build a hotel in Birmingham suitable for foreign tourists. The answer is that anybody that wishes to do so can. I shall put no obstacle whatever in his way.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) made a spirited defence of the Civil Service. He saw in this Bill some bias against civil servants. Let me assure him that there is no bias at all.

Mr. Houghton: The right hon. Gentleman did not write the report, so how can he say that? I am judging from all that he said.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I read the report and drafted the Bill or, at least, I take responsibility for the drafting of the Bill, and I can assure him that there is no kind of bias against the Civil Service in either. In point of fact, both I and the able industrialists who served on the Advisory Committee have the highest regard for the efforts which the Civil Service has made over a number of years to undertake the very great responsibility for running the British Industries Fair at the London end.
The issue here is not quite whether civil servants are the best people to do the job. The hon. Gentleman said that industry often takes them. But a civil servant may be taken out of the Civil Service and go into all sorts of jobs, whether running an industry or running a fair. The question here is whether a civil servant, while in the middle of his career,


can be usefully seconded for two or three years to run the British Industries Fair before going on to somewhere else.
The hon. Member for Sowerby said that something may happen to businessmen; they may die, they may go overseas. But they will not be transferred suddenly to the Plastics Division of the Board of Trade. That is the risk which comes with the Civil Service, and quite rightly. One cannot put an able civil servant into one of these jobs and say that he must remain there permanently; it simply is not fair to the civil servant concerned. Therefore, if it is done in this way, it means that there is constant change. As every hon. Member knows, fairs of this kind are today complex professional jobs, in which professional people are best employed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) referred to the need for a permanent home for the London exhibition. This need was echoed in the Goodale Report. I am not entering in to the controversy of where the home should be. I think that my hon. Friend, looking from the heights of Hampstead towards South London, got rather a biased view of what lies to the south of the Thames. I am not plunging either for the Crystal Palace or for the site at Glasgow; it would be unwise of me to step into these points of controversy.
All I say is that I share the view of the Goodale Report that we ought to watch this situation and consider, if it changes, whether a permanent site there would be available. In the meantime, we have to treat the world as we find it, as it is today, and we would be deluding ourselves if we imagined that we could find many millions of pounds at this time for the erection of a permanent site. For the moment, therefore, we must do the best with what we have got.
The hon. Member for Yardley, speaking as a customer—he is an exhibitor at the Fair—spoke of businessmen and of displaying what the hon. Member for Sowerby calls "a certain vocational ability," which means carrying on business without actually going bankrupt. The hon. Member for Sowerby—he did it very charmingly—explained why business men sometimes feel that other people besides civil servants

can make some contribution to the solution of their problems. The Bill recognises that; it does not rule out the civil servant. The Board of Trade, and particularly the Exhibitions Branch, will continue to have, and obviously must have, very close touch with the British Industries Fair; this is of very great importance. It cannot be run without a mixture of public and private enterprise, and there should not be any squabbles between the two. We have never had a squabble over the British Industries Fair in that sort of way, and I hope, as the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East will hope, that we do not have any such squabble now.
This is a great national fair, which has made a very great contribution to our exports. What we ought to do now is to take these steps which our advisers, after great consideration, have advised us to take, and to watch the developments as they proceed over the coming years. All of us, in all quarters of the House should wish them well.

Mr. Bottomley: While we on this side do not in any way change our view that we think it is wrong that a public corporation should run the British Industries Fair—it is a matter of judgment, and time alone will tell what is right—and while taking note that the President of the Board of Trade has ignored the vital part of the Ramsden Committee Report which deals with exports, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's plea that we ought not to make the Fair a matter of party conflict, with which we entirely agree, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR (GUARANTEES AND GRANTS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Treasury to guarantee loans and the Board of Trade to


make grants to British Industries Fair Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the company"), it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required for fulfilling guarantees given under the said Act in respect of the repayment of, and the payment of interest on, loans made to the company;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by way of the repayment of any sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under the said Act;
(c) the making, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of grants to the company to wards defraying expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the company in advertising the British Industries Fair.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE (ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable grants to be made in respect of measures taken to secure the due functioning of electricity undertakings in Great Britain in the event of hostile attack, it is expedient to authorise any charge on moneys provided by Parliament which may result from amending section thirty-nine of the Civil Defence Act, 1939, so as to make it applicable to electricity undertakings, and making section six of the Civil Defence Act, 1948, apply to the said section thirty-nine as so amended.

Resolution agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

6.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
We had a fairly full debate on Second Reading and the House was good enough to give the Bill its Second Reading without a Division. The Bill has now passed through the Committee and Report stages without Amendment, and I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary for me to add anything further at this stage unless any hon. Member has questions to raise.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

CIVIL DEFENCE (POLICE)

6.48 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move,
That the Draft Civil Defence (Police) Regulations, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.
These Regulations and those which follow, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, cover identical ground, and it might be for the convenience of the House if the two sets of Regulations were discussed together. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is here to answer questions on any Scottish points that may be raised during the debate.
Section 2 of the Civil Defence Act, 1948, empowers my right hon. and learned Friend to make Regulations for the purpose of conferring certain functions on police authorities in England and Wales. The Secretary of State for Scotland is the designated Minister for similar purposes in that country.
Regulations have already been made in this connection. The Civil Defence (Police) Regulations, 1952, confer on police authorities the function of training and equipping the regular police and special constables for Civil Defence purposes.
Under those Regulations the function of providing equipment is given to the police authorities subject to certain limitations; in particular they are only empowered to provide such civil defence equipment as may be needed for training purposes.
The Regulations now before the House repeal the 1952 Regulations and, generally speaking, reproduce them but there is one change of substance. The function of providing equipment is not now limited to training purposes only. In other words, the Regulations enable the police authorities to provide operational equipment. In practice that might mean, for example, that if it were desirable to secure police communications against the risk of enemy attack, provision could be made for standby equipment or for the removal of a main transmitter from the centre of a town to a less dangerous position; or it might be


necessary to install extra telephone equipment or to re-route a vulnerable circuit.
A certain amount of work of this description is now impending, and it is desirable that the appropriate function should be given to police authorities because that will enable grants to be made at the appropriate rate, either 75 per cent, or 100 per cent, according to the nature of the expenditure. The organisations representing the police authorities have been consulted and they are in agreement with the Regulations. I hope the House will give them unanimous approval.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: One of the advantages of having this procedure is that from time to time we are reminded of the important part the police have to play in Civil Defence. They are not primarily a Civil Defence service, but it is on occasions like this that we are reminded of their great value in this field.
I do not quite follow why there has been this change. Was it because of consultations with the police authorities that this was seen to be a better way of doing it, or was it because the plans have been more advanced for Civil Defence generally and there has been a change in policy, which has required the introduction of these Regulations to implement that change? If the hon. Gentleman will deal with that small point I have no further questions to ask.

6.53 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: By leave of the House, it is the second of the two explanations suggested by the hon. Member which applies. It is not exactly a change of policy, but the development of the Civil Defence plans means that it is now necessary to add this function to the police authorities. The time is ripe for them to carry out this function, and, therefore, it is desirable to give them power to do so.

6.54 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: There is one question I should like to put to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I realise that the Regulations are absolutely necessary, but the point that I should like to ask is what

estimate, if any, has been made for the protective accommodation which would be provided. Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give me that information tonight?

6.55 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I should be obliged if the Joint Under-Secretary would provide information upon, and perhaps confirm, what was said in a previous debate on the 1952 Regulations. What does accommodation for control of police personnel mean? Could it be confined to accommodation necessary for the control of the police in large areas and only that? It will not, I assume, include accommodation for police personnel anywhere, but only that which is necessary for the control of the police in larger towns.
There is one other point. What increase in equipment does this envisage? At the moment the equipment is provided for the training of police in Civil Defence purposes. What extra equipment, therefore, is meant in the new Regulations? Does it mean, for example, the provision of steel helmets, protective clothing or even gum boots? Thirdly, will this extra cost be covered by the 75 per cent, or 100 per cent, grants to the responsible authorities.

6.57 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): These are the answers to the questions put to me by the hon. Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan). The position is exactly as he described it, and it is with the control of personnel that the Regulations are concerned.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gave an indication of the type of equipment that might be necessary, such as communications having to be moved to some more protected or distant part away from the centre of a large city. As to the percentage grant, my hon. Friend did say that it would be 75 or 100 per cent, as laid down.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) asked me about the estimate for protected accommodation. There is no figure available for that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Civil Defence (Police) Regulations, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.
Draft Civil Defence (Police) (Scotland) Regulations, 1954 [copy presented, 9th February] approved.—[Commander T. D. Galbraith.]

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Bromyard, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Would the Under-Secretary say whether in this case a poll was taken and if so, what was the vote on it?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): A poll was taken and 593 electors voted, which was 46·8 per cent, of the electorate. Of these, 430 were in favour and 163 against, giving a majority of 267 in favour.

Question put, and agreed to.

MEDICAL AUXILIARIES (REGULATIONS)

6.59 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Medical Auxiliaries) Regulations, 1954 (S.I., 1954, No. 55), dated 18th January, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th January, be annulled.
In the few moments available before Private Business is to be discussed, I desire to draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that this Statutory Instrument, for the first time, brings before us the problem of the implementation of the Cope Committee recommendations, or, rather, I should say, their non-implementation. I wish to make it clear that all we seek to do by moving this Motion is to get further information from the Ministry of Health about its intentions in this matter.
We hope that if the Minister's explanations are satisfactory it will not be necessary for us to divide the House, but there are—

It being Seven o Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: On a point of order. I do not know if you could give us a little guidance about how the debate should be conducted, Mr. Speaker. There are on the Order Paper a number of Motions about instructing the Committee. I understand that they must be moved before a certain hour so that they can be discussed. I do not know whether the House would agree that the Second Reading debate should end in time for those Instructions to be moved. Perhaps you could give guidance about the best way to conduct the debate.

Mr. Speaker: In response to the hon. Member's request, I would say a few words about the scope of the Bill in relation to the relevance of debate upon it. It is a general powers Bill which contains provisions relating to the railways and canals. It is true that there are two small references to the London Transport Executive. One of the Works—Work No. 5—is a tunnel at the Monument for the underground railway, and there is a mention in Clause 16 of the acquisition of land for a bus site at Hatfield; but I do not think that either of those two matters would support debate upon the general question of the London Transport Executive. They are minor matters.
The Bill does not deal with freights and passenger fares, with hotels or with the Commission's road service undertakings. The Ruling I give on the scope of the Bill is that it would be in order


to have a general fairly wide discussion on the administration of the railways and the inland waterways. Also, of course, any specific provisions in the Bill may be discussed on Second Reading.
About the Instructions which have been put down, I should make two comments. First, no Instruction can be moved until the Bill has been read a Second time. Secondly, I would draw the attention of hon. Members who have these Instructions on the Order Paper to the fact that by Standing Order No. 7 no fresh opposed Private Business can be entered upon after nine o'clock. Therefore, if they are not reached and proposed from the Chair by that time they cannot thereafter be proceeded with if they are opposed.
Beyond that, I am entirely in the hands of the House. It is for the House to say how, within the limits of the Ruling I have given, the debate should be conducted.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that my hon. Friends on this side of the House propose to extend the debate very widely. There will be other opportunities for us to discuss the wider aspects of the British Transport Commission.
The mere fact that the Bill is so limited gives us cause for concern. We feel that it is indicative of the restriction which still prevails on modernisation and development. British Railways in particular have been starved of capital investment for a long period. The fact that at this stage, when a Private Bill is brought to the House, there are only a large number of minor matters in it indicates that the Commission is not in a position, or has not been encouraged by Government, to embark upon considerable schemes of extension and development.
I fully appreciate that the Commission has a large number of powers in regard to works which have not yet been exercised. I wish to discuss the question of level crossings. Clause 28 gives the Commission power to substitute lifting barriers for gates at public road crossings. These lifting barriers are of the type frequently seen on the Continent. They are lowered horizontally across the road when trains are passing and they are raised into a vertical position when the line is clear.
An experiment has been conducted in Yorkshire with this type of Continental barrier. I understand that it has proved reasonably satisfactory. I do not know whether or not the Commission proposes to introduce a large number of these barriers, but some of us feel that there should be a protection for the local authorities in the areas concerned. They should have the right to be consulted, and their consent should be obtained before this type of barrier is introduced.
The local authorities are responsible for road safety. It is only right that they should be consulted before there is any change. Many people fear that the lifting type of barrier is not so safe as the gate type. Level crossings of the gate variety on public roads are operated with wheel-worked gates. There are block indicators and repeater block bells to warn the gatekeeper of approaching trains. I am not certain that the new type is as safe.
Representations have been made to the effect that where the lines are electrified—and unfortunately that is not in a great many areas served by British Railways—there is the possibility that it might be easier for children and irresponsible people to get under the lifting barriers on to the live rail. The Clause provides that these barriers will not be substituted without the consent of the Minister, which is as it should be. I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to give an assurance that in no circumstances would the Minister give his consent unless he was fully satisfied that the new form of barrier gave equal protection to the public to that (provided by the gate type. I also ask that he should consider suggesting to the Commission that it should so amend the Bill as to make it necessary to obtain the consent of the local authority. If the Commission is satisfied that the new type is as safe as the old one, they would not hesitate to agree.
I ask the House to bear with me while I raise a constituency point. The Liverpool Street—Cambridge line runs through the eastern part of my constituency, and there is a series of level crossings. One known as Brimsdown has a long history of dispute. Before the war authority was given for a bridge to be substituted but, unfortunately, the war prevented that being done. Although representations have been made to successive


Governments since then, authority to construct a bridge in place of the level crossings has been refused. In the interests of production, in the interests of the export trade and in the general interest of the district, it is important that authority should be given for the building of a bridge at Brimsdown.
The very important factories in Eastern Enfield have no other entry or exit except that at Brimsdown. During peak periods the level crossing gates are sometimes closed for 30 minutes in an hour and sometimes on 15 occasions within an hour. Roughly half the working population of Enfield have to cross this narrow level crossing—it is only 30 feet—to get to and from their place of work. Also, there is ever-increasing traffic in the area.
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to ask his Department to look into the matter again. Recently a deputation went to the Ministry from the Enfield and District Manufacturers Association and the Enfield Chamber of Commerce. I regret to say that it received no satisfaction and no indication of when there was any possibility of the work being done. The failure to meet local needs by providing a bridge in place of a level crossing at this spot demonstrates the inadequacy of the £50 million road programme which was recently announced. In this area there are three level crossings within a very short distance.
I regret that there is no indication in the Bill of any further measures for the electrification of the North London suburban lines. This is a matter which has been discussed whenever we have debated a Transport Commission Bill and on many other occasions. The antiquated lines from Liverpool Street and King's Cross which today serve Enfield defy description. On many occasions I have attempted to describe them in various terms. I have said that they remind one of the "Fanny by Gaslight" era, that they are museum pieces and the like. All I can say today is that they are suffering from senile decay. The time has really come when something must be done about the North London suburban lines from Liverpool Street to Enfield.
We are gratified that at long last plans are being drawn up and costs estimated for the building of the new tube from Victoria to Walthamstow and that there is to be a connection with the North

London lines at Seven Sisters, Tottenham, which will bring about the electrification of these lines. In spite of that, my constituents fear that it will be many years before that electrification takes place, because not only will the cost of building the overdue tube line be great, but its construction will take a long time.
I urge the Ministry once again to consider whether electrification of the North London lines might not take place prior to the construction of the tube. My constituents have been palmed off with the promise of the tube line, but as electrification is to take place after, or at the same time as, the tube is built, why cannot electrification take place now so that some relief can be afforded to the people who travel on these lines?
As I said earlier, my hon. Friends and I do not propose to embark upon a general debate about the position of the Transport Commission. I merely wish to repeat what I said earlier. The smallness of the works included in the Bill shows the need for greater capital investment in the railways, which, unfortunately for this country, are today lagging far behind those of many other countries. Many hon. Members will have read of the French locomotive which last week pulled a train at 151 m.p.h.
Because of the inheritance which our nationalised concern got from private enterprise—the inheritance of an un-modernised system, one starved of development—it is a tremendous task for us to catch up with the work which should have been carried out in the past. However, some progress is being made. During recent years, there has been considerable mechanisation of goods depots and other components of our railway system. We are delighted that diesel sets have been ordered and will shortly be in operation, and that diesel locomotives are being used in the shunting yards in increasing numbers. But there is still a great deal which needs to be done.
I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us something of the position about the railway reorganisation plan. The 1953 Act required the Commission to present to the Minister within a year of the passing of the Act a plan for the reorganisation of the railways. That period expires next May. It would be interesting if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us what progress has


been made in drawing up the plan and when we can expect the White Paper which the House was promised. Hon. Members will be interested if he can indicate the lines which the reorganisation scheme is following.
I have some grave misgivings about the reorganisation plan. It is true that, because of the greater power which has been given to the chief regional managers, there is now a greater degree of autonomy in the regions, and I have no doubt that to some extent that results in benefits; but if the reorganisation is to follow the lines which were suggested by hon. Members opposite—they were discussed during the passage of the 1953 Act —and area boards are to be established for the regions, I have grave doubts whether that will bring benefits to the British Railways organisation.
As I have said, the chief regional managers have greater autonomy today and deal direct with the members of the Commission. But if, as was suggested from the benches opposite, area boards are to be interposed between the chief regional managers and the Commission, then there will be greater confusion and more difficulty in the operation of the British railway system.
Although British Railways today are lagging behind the modern development in many other countries, it is certainly not their fault, because they have been deprived of the advantage of increasing their capital expenditure. If they are to continue to compete with the increasing internal air travel, and, of course, with the increasing traffic on the roads, it will be necessary for them to show initiative and enterprise in their operation.
While, of course, abiding by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that the question of charges and fares does not enter into this matter, I think I am in order in saying that the railways should have regard to that matter in considering what steps they must take to attract traffic. We have seen the success of the "Starlight Special" from Scotland to London which has been carrying passengers at fares comparable to those charged by road passenger services, and, of course, to those charged by the air services.
The success of the "Starlight Special" has been due to the reduced fares and the

consequent full loading of the train. The possibility of attracting more traffic to the railways does not lie in increasing fares in order to meet rising costs, but in reducing fares in order to attract traffic and to run to greater capacity than is frequently the case. The free booking on trains at reduced fares would ensure their full capacity loading, and that means that they could be operated profitably.
I suggest to the Commission that in order to attract the holiday traffic to the railways, it should extend this system of cheap tickets for the holiday period, provided that bookings are made in advance so that the trains can be assured of full loading capacity. By some form of family tickets or holiday specials, and so on, some of the traffic which goes to the roads today could be attracted to the railways. The majority of people who travel do not prefer to go by coach. They do so only because it is cheaper. If the railways were able to offer cheaper rates the traffic would return to them.
This Bill will, of course, receive the support of hon. Members on this side of the House. All we regret is its narrow scope inasmuch as it reflects the position in which the Commission finds itself today, a position of inability to embark upon vastly increased capital expenditure in order to bring the system more up to date.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Eraser: This is an omnibus and an amphibious Bill, and it is with the amphibious side of it that I wish to deal this evening. Apart from dealing with roads, bridges, the dissolution of a bus company and the reform of the 1949 Act, it deals with the question of canals. There are four Clauses dealing with that subject, two of them, possibly, being objectionable and two salutary.
Clause 12 affects some of my constituents in so far as it proposes the partial dehydration of the Shropshire Union Canal. Clause 13 deals with the partial liquidation—if such a word can be applied—of the same canal. Clauses 14 and 15 deal with general regulations for all canals. On that point, I want to ask what the intentions of the Transport Commission, or those representing it, and of the Inland Waterways Executive, are


regarding the whole question of canal transport.
It is extremely difficult to obtain reliable figures on canals, because the last report on them was that of a Royal Commission which was set up in 1906 and which reported four years later, in 1910. But, even on the figures available, it would seem that during the last few years an average annual sum of £1,250,000 has been spent on the general maintenance of canals and £570,000 on arrears of maintenance, while the amount spent on advertising the canals has been only £1,300 compared with the £900,000 spent by the railways in advertising their own form of transport.
I do not know whether the gondoliers, or whoever they may be who run the Inland Waterways Executive, bear this point in mind, but, at the moment, it seems that that Executive is destroying with one hand what it is trying to build up with the other. I hope that before the evening is out we shall be told the general intentions of the Transport Commission towards the use of canals in this country.
Clause 12 affects the interests of my constituents in Stafford and Stone in so far as they have a fleet of pleasure craft which are employed to the great enjoyment of the persons travelling on them. They travel over one of the most beautiful stretches of water in the country, which is the Shropshire Union Canal. Hon. Members who have studied the question of the canals will realise that this canal, which runs between what was once the Port of Chester and Wolverhampton, is no longer of great use for commercial purposes.
This Bill proposes to allow the Transport Commission to sell the waters of this canal to those who will buy them. The 1944 Act, which this Bill proposes to continue in operation, gave permission to the railways, who then owned the canal, to dispose of the water for up to 10 years provided that such disposal did not prevent normal navigation. If hon. Members refer to that Act, they will see there a definition of what surplus water means in this connection:
In this section 'surplus water' means any water not required for maintaining a supply of water for the purposes of navigation.
There is a danger of this canal being emptied by those attempting to sell the

water to the detriment of those travelling along the canal or sending goods by it. There is a danger to their pleasure and comfort. I hope that the Committee on the Bill will consider that carefully.
I hope it will consider also what was said by Lord Chesham, who was in charge of that Measure in another pjace in 1944. He said that all those concerned must see, in the interests of persons using the canal, that there was no diminution of the water. We must not have this canal emptied. I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that. We may also say, especially as a caution to the would-be emptiers in this case, "Caveat emptor." I do hope that the Select Committee will see that the rights of my constituents, and of others who use the canal for pleasure or for the carriage of goods, are protected, and that there is no dehydration carried out by the ruthless barons who run the Inland Waterways Executive.
Another Clause I consider to be unfortunate, too. We all understand that certain branches of the canals have to be closed. It is unfortunate that sections of canals should be closed without proper explanation to the House, and I hope that in Committee there will be consideration of this matter and proper discussion of it.
I turn now to the two Clauses involving general principles, which apply not only to the Shropshire Union Canal and affect not only my constituents, but which apply to the 4,000 miles of inland waterways controlled by the Commission. Clauses 14 and 15 deal with the prevention of nuisance and the purification of the canals, totally unobjectionable objectives. The byelaws are delightfully diverse and vary greatly. There is little objection to be taken to them, except possibly in two instances.
It seems a bit harsh that the Commission should have power to regulate the markings of all vessels using the canals. I see in my mind's eye a horrible picture of figureheads cast in the likeness of my right hon. Friend and of the Parliamentary Secretary, placed at the bows of some of the craft, with Pleasure at the helm, and all coloured in solid beige and maroon. I hope that the provisions do not mean interference with the gay colours of the barges that still ply about


on their lawful occasions on our inland waterways. I think, also, that the Commission should not have power to prevent or regulate bathing in the canals. That is a matter that should be left to the local authorities, not to a central organisation in London.
I am amazed at some of the regulations that have been enforced by the Commission, or that have been allowed to be enforced, on the canals. It is to be hoped there will be some improvement in some of these. I refer to an admirable document circulated to most Members by the National Association of Parish Councils. That Association cites some extraordinary things that have been allowed to happen.
The National Coal Board, at one moment in 1945, imposed a special levy of 2s. a ton on coal carried by canal. As a result the mines in the Cannock district closed down their wharves for the shipment of coal. The most extraordinary things have happened. In no less a place than the Diglis Basin, at Worcester, for some mysterious reason the fee for mooring, in 1949, was overnight increased from £3 to £20. There are some extraordinary anomalies, and I hope that the Commission will see that in the execution of their duties its officers do not impose or allow to be imposed regulations which will restrict the use of the canal system.
I do not want to weary the House by entering upon the argument that can be developed that more use could be made of our canals. Figures can be produced to show that movement by canal is at times more expeditious than movement by rail. Figures can also be produced to show that it is cheap. The reconstruction of some of the grand trunk canals and the construction of the ordinary 30-ton barge, as distinct from the 100-ton or 200-ton barge, may well be advantageous.
In the short time I have had the honour to be a Member of the House I have advocated more hill farming, of which I know something. Possibly that would have been considered economic nonsense 25 years ago. It would have been economic nonsense to talk about increasing tin production in Cornwall 25 years ago. So, now, with the canals. It may be anything but economic nonsense to suggest their reconstruction and preservation. We have

to do a good deal of new thinking about our available assets.
We have 4,000 miles of canals. Many people may say it is a waste of time to do anything about them, but I believe the time has come, not for another Royal Commission such as that great one of 1906, which produced a report eminent for its learning in these matters, but for a new examination of the canal system by the British Transport Commission, to see whether more use could be made of our canals system than is made of it now.
I hope that there may be consideration by the Government of these matters during the passage of the Bill, and that the intentions of the Commission for use of these many miles of waterways may be explained to us.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) on re-introducing into our debates the practice of making classical allusions, although his was somewhat dubious in its immediate application. Although, in the past, some hon. Members gloried in them it was always possible that not everyone exactly followed the meaning of their classical allusions. At any rate, we knew what the hon. Gentleman meant.
I support his plea for some further thought being given to the Clause dealing with the canals. In order not to weary the House unduly I would refer hon. Members to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolver-hampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) the other night in the debate on the roads, when he dealt very fully with the general aspect of this matter. I sincerely hope that what he then said has not been forgotten by the Minister of Transport or the British Transport Commission.
There is no doubt that the invention of the internal combustion engine, and its application to boating, has made the use for pleasure of these waterways a great deal more easy than it was at the time when the Commission of 1906 reported. I happen to be the owner of a small motor boat and I have tried to ascertain the possibilities of using some of these canals. I require a width of only 7 feet and a draught of under 3 feet, but when I have applied and asked for a guarantee that I shall be able to travel along


a canal with my boat, the warnings I have received about the perils of the return journey, owing to a lowering of the water or to some other obstruction, have made me dubious about entering upon it.
I sincerely hope that the Transport Commission will consider how far it can preserve the existing waterways, at any rate, and make them useful not merely for commercial traffic—although I think that that is an important matter, for I share the views of the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone that there are many loads of heavy materials which are today conveyed by road that could be conveyed more expeditiously, and certainly more cheaply, by the canals if these were available. I therefore trust that the Shropshire Union Canal may not be dehydrated, as the hon. Gentleman said, because, as I understand it, dehydration may well be a first step towards what he next described as liquidation—although that does not mean putting more liquid into the canal.
I also welcome the powers that are taken in the Bill for the establishment of general byelaws, but I hope that the regulation and marking of vessels will not go beyond insisting that the name of every vessel shall be prominently displayed on it so that, in the event of causing difficulties with other craft, the vessel that caused the difficulty may be easily identified.
For instance, the regulation of the Thames Conservancy on the matter is that the name of the vessel shall be displayed prominently both on the bows and on the stern, if it is a dark coloured vessel with light lettering, and if it is a light coloured vessel, with dark lettering. That is desirable, hut I hope that there will be no effort made to restrict the colouring, which is traditional on canal boats.
I am rather alarmed at Clause 15 (5). I cannot think that anyone other than the Transport Commission would have dared to submit such a subsection to the House as this:
So much of any existing enactment as may be inconsistent with the provisions of this section is hereby repealed…
There is no indication in which Act they are to be found.
When one turns over to the Second Schedule, where the waterways to be dis-

continued are mentioned, one sees that these are very old Acts of Parliament in which powers may have been created and which may possibly, although not certainly, cease to have effect with the new byelaws. There would appear to be in the future possibly grave uncertainty as to what the law on any phase of this matter may be, and the extent to which it will be altered or repealed by this Measure. I suggest that something more specific should be done.
One cannot read the Second Schedule without a feeling of great disappointment. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reassure me on this point, because I gather that the parts of the canals proposed to be discontinued by the Second Schedule are, in the main, small sidings—I suppose we could call them were they railways—running down to certain wharves that were the subject of special construction in the old days when these canals were constructed.
When one looks at the dates of the authorising Acts, it is obvious that we are dealing now with something that has been a part of the topography of the neighbourhood for nearly a couple of centuries. I hope that none of these are connecting links between one canal and another because it is important, if we are to preserve canals, that they should be preserved as a system so that it may be possible, both for the conveyance of goods and for pleasure traffic, that round trips can be made which will ensure efficiency in both respects.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but I repeat to the Parliamentary Secretary that I hope he will listen to the remarks from the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone and myself in the light of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, Norrh-East, which I think the hon. Gentleman heard when we discussed the matter a few days ago. I sincerely hope that this discussion may have good effects in preserving and extending the use of the canal system both for the conveyance of goods and for pleasure traffic.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: The debate on the annual British Transport Commission Bill tends to be a contentious one about railways, but tonight, by way of contrast, we seem to be having


a most agreeable debate about the canals. I support the pleas made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser), and I want to add a word about the towpaths on the canals. It is a fact that although for the most part these are now obsolete from the point of view of canal use, because the barges are so rarely drawn by horses, nevertheless they are frequently appreciated by the public for recreation and exercise.
This has been recognised by some local authorities over the years, who have persuaded the canal companies in the past, and more rarely the British Transport Commission in recent years, to enter into agreements permitting the public to use the towpaths. Unfortunately, those agreements did not place any obligation upon the Inland Waterways Executive or on the Transport Commission, or on the companies, let it be fairly said, to maintain these towpaths in a safe condition. We are all familiar with the fact that children especially, when using them for play or exercise, have had bad accidents.
There are many cases, of course, in which there are no agreements, but public rights of way have been established by prescription or mere permission; but, if the legal position is doubtful, the Commission have nevertheless allowed the public to use the towpaths. Whatever their legal status is, I would make a plea to the Commission on this occasion that they would not use their byelaw-making powers given in Clause 15 (2) to prohibit the passage of the public, when it is reasonably safe for the public to continue to use the towpaths.
I do not think, however, that we can reasonably expect the Commission, bearing in mind that it is a commercial undertaking and receives no subsidy whatever for the purposes of maintaining public recreation, to undertake at great expense to maintain towpaths which, from its point of view, are obsolete, however desirable they may be to the public. Nevertheless, it would frequently not cost very much to ensure that an occasional dangerous place, where the bank may be falling in or something like that, is given some attention and just a few pounds spent on it. The Commission certainly would not suffer, if it adopted a reasonable attitude on this matter but if the

Commission is going to be ruthless about the exercise of its right to make byelaws to close towpaths the public will suffer a great deal.
The noble Lady, the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) and I have put down an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Clause 15 (2, k). That paragraph gives power to prohibit the passage
without the consent of the Commission of any person animal or vehicle over any tow-path of the canal.
Even if the opportunity arises tonight, we certainly would not wish to divide the House on that matter, because the Commission must have that power. We put down our Instruction only in the hope that it would be a means of drawing the attention of the Commission to what we consider to be at any rate its moral duty in this matter.
I should like to follow up the remarks of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) about level crossings. Before doing so, I should like to say what an unusual pleasure it was to find myself in agreement with about three-quarters of what the hon. Member said about transport.

Mr. David Jones: The hon. Member is improving.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Enfield, East is improving.
Clause 9 (5) of this Bill directly affects a level crossing in my constituency, with which I am familiar. It is the level crossing between the village of Conington and a part of the Fen called Monk's Lode, on what is still sometimes called the Great Northern Railway. It is the main line between York and King's Cross, over which so many hon. Members must have travelled. It is a very dangerous crossing indeed. It is a typical example of an old accommodation level crossing across a main line. It so happens that the people who work on the Fen East of that main line mostly live in the villages to the West of the line and they have to cross it each way each day. There have been some most unpleasant and some very tragic accidents there since the war, though, I am glad to say, none quite recently. I know that these accidents gave the Commission great concern, and this is a place about which we should always be very wary.
I am surprised, therefore, to find what the Commission proposes to do now. If I have read the Clause correctly, it seems that instead of maintaining properly manned gates across the railway line to regulate the non-pedestrian traffic, the use of the properly manned gates is to be discontinued and there will merely be cattle-grids across them. In any event, I do not think that cattle-grids will be any use, because there is a certain amount of traffic over the railway by farm horses. I know of one farm, at least, which uses horses for carting purposes, especially at harvest time. I should have thought, therefore, that it was doubtful whether cattle-grids would be suitable. But quite apart from that, I should think that it would be a dangerous thing not to have gates opened and shut for non-pedestrian traffic and manned by railway employees, as they always have been in the past.
Moving from that particular instance to the general question of level crossings, I note that there are about 20,000 accommodation level crossings in this country. Some of them, of course, were merely intended as farm crossings when they were constructed, but since then there has been town development round them and some of them are now very much busier than it was ever contemplated they would be, when they were originally built. Yet the legal position about the upkeep of these crossings and the liability for accidents upon them remains as it was originally.
Some five years ago I asked questions of the predecessor of the present Minister of Transport. I asked if he would get the Commission to look into this matter and put forward proposals for bringing the law up to date with regard to the use of these crossings. I have raised the matter about once a year since then; but, so far as I am aware, the Commission has come to no conclusion. We as a Parliament have certainly had no proposals put before us. It is time that this matter was properly tidied up.
I am very surprised to find Clause 29 in this Bill. The Clause says:
On the passing of this Act the Norwich Omnibus Company shall by virtue of this Act be dissolved and their property and assets transferred to and vested in the Commission.
Last year Parliament passed a Bill, under which the Minister was given power to compel the Commission to divest itself of

its majority holding in bus companies. It is strange, therefore, to find the Commission now putting forward a Bill to do just the opposite. It is going to acquire a bus company. There are many obscure things of this kind in the Bill and one would expect to find explanations of them somewhere, perhaps in the Preamble. But the Preamble does not help us very much with regard to this Company. It merely states that the Norwich Omnibus Company was incorporated by an Act of 1897 and under that Act the Norwich Electric Tramways Company was authorised to construct a tramway. Some further explanation is required. It is a matter about which the Committee, which is to deal with this Bill, should concern itself.
A Bill of this kind deals with a tremendous variety of things. Some of its provisions are very far-reaching and some are very obscure. In order that Parliament may understand and improve a Private Bill of this kind—but I do not say that it should apply to every Bill—we should be given a little more explanation. The Preamble is not really good enough as an explanatory memorandum. If some kind of memorandum were produced with a Bill of this kind, it would not add greatly to the cost. But there are some little things which should be done to help us, even if a memorandum is not forthcoming. For example, in the Second Schedule, which deals with the closing of canals, there is a tremendous amount of necessary detailed description, but that description does not tell us what lengths of canals are being closed. The first column, for example, should state "one mile," "three furlongs," "50 yards" or whatever it may be. Then we should be able to understand better the dimensions of the problem and to deal more precisely with it.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East asked the Parliamentary Secretary—-at least I assume that his question was directed to my hon. Friend—when the scheme for the reorganisation of the railways was to be put before the House. It is obvious that we on this side of the House are keener to see that scheme presented than perhaps are hon. Members opposite, but all hon. Members must wish to see the railways become more efficient. They cannot carry these wage increases, increased charges and so on, unless they


become more efficient—and that very soon. I attach great importance to the House being able to see the re-organisation scheme and passing it at a very early date.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: One wonder follows on another in this debate tonight, because I find myself in agreement with almost all the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) has said, which is more remarkable than his agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). I regret that I cannot go with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in his boat in his delightful but slow progress along the canals. I have to go by rail tonight because I have a much longer journey.
This Bill, like its predecessors, and I presume its successors, deals with a variety of matters relating to the British Transport Commission. Like all preceding speakers, I propose to confine myself to provisions of the Bill rather than the general problems of railway administration, except that I would remind the hon. Member for Huntingdon that, although Parliament last year took power to divest the Commission of its very large interest in omnibus companies, the Minister of Transport rightly said that he would not exercise those powers until the Thesiger Committee reported. If the hon. Member will read the Report of that Committee he will find that, except for political reasons, there is no object at all in using these powers to divest the Commission of its interest in omnibus companies.

Mr. Renton: That is not what the Report said; read it again.

Mr. Jones: I have read it. I wish to deal with some of the Clauses on which I have some criticism to make. Like the hon. Member for Huntingdon, I want to call attention to Clause 9. I think that the provisions of that Clause, in which it is proposed that
As from the passing of this Act all rights of way over"—
16 level crossings specified
in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act other than a right of way for all persons to use those level crossings on foot shall subject to the provisions of this section be extinguished;

and the relevant provisions of the existing Public Acts relating to these level crossings are to cease to have effect in relation thereto. The Commission has an obligation to maintain "wicket gates or styles" for persons passing on foot on the existing crossings, which are generally to be deemed accommodation crossings for the use of owners and occupiers of land adjoining the railway. If hon. Members will look at the First Schedule they will see that these crossings range over the whole country. Some are on main lines where passenger trains travel at very high speed. It is true that some are on lesser used railways where, perhaps, the need for economy might call for the provision of an accommodation crossing.
In case anyone does not understand that term, an "accommodation crossing" is a pair of gates fixed on each side of the railway and not controlled by signals or lights at which the owner of land on either side of the railway is given possession of a key with which he may open the gates and pass with his cattle, sheep, or horses, across the railway without any protection whatever from approaching trains. That seems a very dangerous procedure, particularly on those sections of the railway where a large number of trains pass during 16 hours at high speeds.
I suggest that the Commission would be well advised to make quite sure that all the people who require to use these crossings—mainly farmers—are thoroughly acquainted with what is proposed. Those people should be consulted before a crossing is converted into an accommodation crossing. I am advised that there is one crossing where a farmer has to cross the line with his cattle four times a day in the summer for milking purposes and where, between 6 o'clock in the morning and midnight, some 70 or 80 trains pass in one direction or the other. In those circumstances, it ought to be necessary for the Commission to consult individual farmers who use these crossings to make quite certain that they understand all the complications involved before proceeding to deal with them as accommodation crossings.
Clause 23 seeks to give the Commission power after the passing of the Act, where any road or street is made up under the Private Streets Works Act, providing the Commission has no exit to


that road, not to be obliged to pay their share of frontage costs. As an ex-member of a local authority, I am aware of hundreds of houses situated at the side of a cross-section of a road where they have no exit to the road but where, because the side of the house faces on to the road, the owner is called upon to pay his proportion of the cost of making up. I see no reason why the British Transport Commission should be treated differently from the ordinary householder in this matter. The Commission provides that if at some future date it seeks to create an exit on to the road it shall then be called upon to pay its share. It is true that it is undertaking to contribute to the cost of existing roads, but I hope that the Committee upstairs will examine this matter very carefully. Although I am a great admirer of the way in which the Commission has performed its tasks, I do not think that in these circumstances it should have any preferential treatment.
Clause 27 is a very innocuous looking Clause and only comprises two lines. It seeks to repeal subsection (3) of Section 54—(Powers of police as to search and arrest)—of the Act of 1949. Section 54 of the 1949 Act has three subsections. Subsection (1) re-enacts Section 66 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839; subsection (2) re-enacts Section 24 of the Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1839; and subsection (3), inserted I understand by the direction of the Committee upstairs, provides that the special powers of the Metropolitan Police Act shall cease to have effect as and from 1st August, 1954.
In effect, that means that, if this Clause is permitted to remain in the Bill, it will give these special powers to the British Transport Commission's police in perpetuity without Parliament having any further say in the matter. I regard that as being far too important a matter to be dealt with in that way, and it is for that reason that I and my hon. Friend have put down an Instruction to the Committee, which I hoped would have been called later on, seeking to leave out Clause 27.
This is merely following on the Great Western Railway Act, 1923, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Act, 1924, the Southern Railway Act, 1924, and the London and North Eastern Railway Act,

1927, and, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), I would say that the London and North Eastern Railway Act, 1947, had a five-year Clause in it which the other three Railway Acts which I have mentioned did not have.
This gives the British Transport Commission police power to arrest on suspicion any person on or about railway premises, and to bring them before the courts, when it is the responsibility of the arrested person to prove his or her innocence rather than for the police to prove his or her guilt. In my judgment, that is a complete reversal of what I understand as British justice, and, therefore, though there may be an argument advanced for suggesting that in the special circumstances of the railways some exceptional powers ought to be given, I do not think that we ought to give these powers to the British Transport Commission in perpetuity without Parliament having anything to say about them.
Parliament has been very jealous of its powers. Since the termination of the war, five or six counties and county boroughs have inserted similar provisions in Private Bills that have been introduced into this House, but, in each case, the offending Clause has been removed. Never since 1938 has Parliament given that power to any single provincial police authority in this country, and, if Parliament in its wisdom therefore deems it inexpedient to give these exceptional powers to provincial police forces that are controlled by the elected representatives of the public, it seems to me to be quite wrong to give these powers in perpetuity to what, in effect, is a semi-private police force.
There are, I understand, something like 55 county councils in England and Wales with 50 separate police authorities, and of those county police authorities only one has these exceptional powers. There are some 83 county boroughs in this country with 77 or 78 separate police forces, and less than a dozen of them have these special powers. Therefore, I was very glad to learn earlier in the day that the British Transport Commission have had second thoughts about this Clause and have intimated to my hon. Friends and myself that they will be prepared to insert in the Bill in Committee upstairs a provision that it shall not last more than five


years after the passing of this Bill before again coming to Parliament, if necessary, for a renewal of the powers.
Finally, may I turn to Clause 28, which I think is important? Here again, I understand, the primary reason actuating the British Transport Commission in seeking to make this alteration to raised bars from the traditional gates at level crossings is that the maintenance costs of the horizontal bars will be considerably less. Here, I think a case may be made out for an examination of separate crossings.
One of my hon. Friends who has seen this experimental bar in operation between York and Hull informs me that it has all the elements of safety except one, and that is that the bar itself has protruding, right-angled bars which prevent anyone like a child or an animal getting on to the crossing when the bar is closed against road traffic. It is floodlit, there are good indications by means of lights and bells to indicate that a crossing is there, and, as far as entrance to the railway while the bar is across the road is concerned, it is perfectly safe.
When the bar is raised to permit road traffic across the railway, the only method of preventing anyone from getting off the crossing onto the railway is a type of cattle-grid. I am quite sure that the boys of today would be just as adept at getting across the cattle-grid as I would have been 35 or 40 years ago. I have tried to climb a crossing gate more than once, and there is no difficulty at all about it. All you have to do is to step gingerly over the cattle-grid, and you have the whole of the railway from York to King's Cross at your mercy.

Sir Frederick Messer: Or the railway has got you.

Mr. Jones: In these circumstances, before the Minister of Transport makes an order, as provided in the Bill, he ought to seek consultation with and the approval of the local authority for the area in which the level crossing is situated. They are the people who know the amount of traffic, who know the local circumstances and who know the dangers as well, and, therefore, while I agree that there is a case for reducing the maintenance costs of these crossings, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, in

addition to the provision in the Bill that the British Transport Commission shall seek the authority of the Minister and the Minister shall make an order, we should insist upon this provision for consultation being written into the Bill. I do not think that a verbal promise from the Parliamentary Secretary tonight will be good enough, because he and his right hon. Friend may not always be there; indeed, they may not be there very much longer. Before the Minister makes an order changing the character of a level crossing he should seek the approval of the local authorities. In that way he would give the British Transport Commission the alleviation in costs that it requires, whilst at the same time he can make quite sure that the interests of all the local authorities are protected.
As I indicated earlier, in view of the assurances that I have received this afternoon, it is not my intention to move the Instruction.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Cyril W. Black: I make no apology for rising to address the House quite briefly on three matters which arise out of the Bill, and which are of particular concern to my constituents, as well as being of more general application. I want to begin where the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) ended, by saying a little about Clause 28.
I want to emphasise the importance of not losing sight of the road safety factor in substituting lifting barriers for the more conventional type of gates at level crossings. In my constituency are two level crossings, and in both cases they are over electrified railway lines. It is obvious that the safety factor has to be even more carefully considered and scrutinised in the case of electrified lines than in the case of the ordinary railways carrying steam trains.
The people in my constituency, whose attention has been drawn to the proposal in Clause 28, are filled with the greatest possible apprehension and concern at the possibilities of accidents arising, particularly to children, who may find it easier to get on to the electrified lines by way of the lifting barrier apparatus than by the gates which exist there at the moment. It is essential that at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill safeguarding provisions should be written in to deal


in clear and specific terms with this very real danger.
The second point in connection with Clause 28 relates to the position of road authorities and local authorities. It is intolerable that on a matter which is of very proper concern to local authorities and to the people in the neighbourhood there should be no provision in the Clause for consultation with the local authorities or with the road authorities, or indeed with any local interest whatsoever. As the Clause exists, it would be perfectly possible for the Commission to obtain the approval of the Minister to the substitution of lifting barriers for the conventional type of level crossing gates, and for the work to be put in hand, and indeed completed, before anyone in the district had any idea of what was about to happen, or had any effective opportunity of making representations or objections to the Minister.
That is a most intolerable disregard of the people concerned and of the interests of the local and the road authorities. I emphasise, with all the emphasis at my command, that there must be provision for consultation with those authorities before any such work is carried out. There should further be provision for appeal to some appropriate tribunal in the event of the local interests not being satisfied with the decision of the Minister in the matter.
I now refer to Clause 32, to which no reference has yet been made, and which is somewhat innocently described in the following terms:
Repeals of time limits for completion of certain works.
The Clause is by no' means so innocent as it appears -to be. Here again, I have a specific case from my own constituency which I should like to bring to the attention of the House, and which illustrates the injustice of repealing time limits in the manner suggested, in connection with such works as the extension of certain lines.
There is in my constituency an uncompleted railway line from Maiden to Leatherhead, which at present ends at Chessington. I am sure it will be fully within the knowledge of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). In the original proposal for the extension of the line to Leatherhead, a time limit was

put upon the work, and it was to expire on 1st October, 1935, very nearly 20 years ago. The work was not undertaken by 1935, and the date for the completion of the work has been extended from time to time and is now 31st December, 1955.
Many people might feel that the former railway company and the present Commission have had in 20 years more than adequate time in which to make up their minds whether they intended to extend this railway line or not, and that it is unreasonable for them to come to the House and expect to get any extension. I would not take such an extreme view of the situation as that, because allowance must be made for the fact that there have been six years of war, in which the execution of such works was impossible, and that in the nine years which have followed since the end of the war there have been all the difficulties of the postwar period, that may be put forward as a reasonable excuse for the non-completion of the railway line.
Let us see what the position will be if Clause 32 is approved in the form in which it now stands. The position will be left open for a completely indefinite period, which will involve the sterilisation of considerable areas of useful and valuable land until the Transport Commission decide whether or not it intends to extend the line. It is ridiculous and unreasonable that the House should agree to an arrangement whereby land required for other purposes should be sterilised for 25, 50 or possibly 100 years just because the Transport Commission cannot make up its mind.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): May I point out that the time limit expires on 31st December, 1957?

Mr. Black: I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. I was misinformed, and I am sorry to have given a wrong date. It is reasonable to give some extension of time, but it would not be reasonable to give more than a further limited extension, since more than 20 years have already passed.
My last point arises from no specific Clause in the Bill but concerns the deplorable condition of many of the railway stations. This should receive the attention of the Commission at a time when


it is so important to improve the efficiency of the railways and attract additional passengers. The particular instance which I shall give has also a general application.
In my division, Wimbledon railway station suffered a good deal of damage during the war. People were prepared to toe patient then, and for a few years afterwards, but the conditions of the station today can only be described as disgraceful. Public indignation is growing to such a pitch that the travelling public will not be content to wait much longer for the carrying out of modest though urgently necessary repairs.
What is true of Wimbledon station is true also of many others controlled by the Commission. It is all very well for the Commission to seek additional traffics, and to balance its budget by causing more and more people to use the railways in preference to other means of transport, but it will not achieve that purpose unless some attention is paid to the convenience of the travelling public. One way to do it is to give attention to the really deplorable condition of many railway stations.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I shall confine myself simply to Clause 31 of the Bill. As it wholly affects my constituency, the House will know that this is a constituency speech. Through this Clause the Transport Commission is seeking powers to close down the branch line still known as the Rhymney Railway, on the west side of the Merthyr Valley. When I have put the case for my constituents, I hope that the House will agree to omit Clause 31.
This railway has been in operation for about 70 years. In that time it has transported tens of millions of tons of coal, and has served the needs of at least 6,000 people who have lived alongside it on the west side of my valley. Before giving my own and my constituents' reasons for opposing the Clause, I profoundly regret that I must strongly protest against the way in which the Transport Commission has treated my constituency in this matter. It is no exaggeration to say that the Commission, wittingly, wantonly and with supreme arrogance, has ignored the needs of my constituents.
In seeking powers to destroy this railway the Commission specifically asks that two railway stations—Aberfan and Abercanaid—shall be permanently closed. I protest vigorously against this. But without waiting for the Parliamentary sanction which it is now seeking, the Commission has already demolished almost the whole of the station of Aberfan. That is an utterly illegal procedure. At that station what was once a very fine building has been razed to the ground, and a piece of land within the station precincts has already been rented or leased to a constituent of mine in order to keep pigs and poultry, and those pigs and poultry are on that station today, before the Commission has received Parliamentary sanction to close it down.
Under the Transport Act, what are known as transport users' consultative committees have been established, the purpose of which is to inquire into any grievance that a community may have in regard to a proposal of the Transport Commission to do something which may be deemed to be against the interests of that community. Before the transport users' committee for South Wales had become aware of what was taking place in my constituency, this Bill was in the Vote Office. I cannot understand who gave authority for the Commission to do that and to outrage the sensibilities of this old industrial community.
I do not want to raise the political implications of this, but the Commission treated this transport users' committee with the same contemptuous disregard as that with which it treated my constituents. The attitude of the Commission appears to be "Why wait for Parliamentary sanction? We are a corporate body. The transport of this country is vested in us. We are a law unto ourselves. We are the bosses." That is the very spirit which has offended my constituents in relation to the closing of this railway.
I have a shrewd suspicion that I am not the only hon. Member who has reason to fear that, because of this vast amount of delegated legislation, delegated parliamentary power, there may arise amongst us a Frankenstein which will destroy our parliamentary democracy. I shall perhaps have something to say about that on another occasion.
When I and others pointed out to the representatives of the Transport Commission that the closing of this railway would sterilise for all time 30 million to 35 million tons of coal, we were told by the Transport Commission that the National Coal Board had agreed to the closing of this line. May I quote exactly what they said:
The question of coal mining developments in the area has received careful consideration in conjunction with the National Coal Board, who have agreed with the Commission's proposal to close the High Level line between Quaker's Yard and Abercanaid.
That is the line in dispute.
Needless to say, I was astounded when that statement was made to me and to others. If I may say so with all humility, I am credited with being a practical coal miner and a mining engineer and with knowing both the coal measures in that part of the coalfield and the geological disturbances which may and, in fact, often do determine the manner in which the seams of coal should be approached and worked.
Having been given this information by the Transport Commission, I wrote to the Chairman of the South-Western Regional Coal Board and asked him whether the statement of the Transport Commission that the Coal Board had agreed to the closing down of this railway was correct. I have his reply here. He said that
the Board had not agreed to the closing down of the branch line under notice.
He went further and said:
With regard to the development of these resources,"—
that is, the coal—
they are well known to us, and there is every possibility that they will be worked in the near future…

Mr. Molson: The hon. Gentleman has stopped in the middle of a sentence. Would he be good enough to complete the sentence?

Mr. Davies: I shall have to re-read it. I have the letter here, and the hon. Member can see it if he desires, so that we need not waste the time of the House. I will quote from it:
With regard to the development of these resources, they are well known to us, and there is every possibility that they will be worked in the near future…

I think that, grammatically, that is a complete sentence.

Mr. Molson: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to complete reading that sentence?

Mr. Davies: Certainly. May I disabuse the hon. Gentleman's mind if he has any suspicion that I am straining to make a case? I happen to know that district. The sentence concludes:
…but I am assured by my production director that the projected closure would not prejudice the working of the resources.
In addition to these reserves of coal, there are other very substantial coal resources in that area, which could most easily and economically be conveyed by the railway in question. I refer to the millions of tons of coal accessible in what is well-known to us in Merthyr Tydvil as the Cwmdu Drift, and to the very substantial quantities of bituminous coal unworked in the bottom half of the valley on the west side adjacent and accessible only to this railway.
I have personally approached the representatives of the Transport Commission, and I want the Parliamentary Secretary to appreciate that. I am not reading from a brief that has been handed to me; I have been in this from the very beginning. I, personally, have pressed the representatives of the Transport Commission to tell me how, if this line is destroyed—and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will listen to this —it proposes to transport the coal away from that side of the valley. With the modem technique and equipment known to us, an output of at least 500,000 tons of coal a year is possible from that part in my constituency.
But neither I nor anybody else who has been interested in this at Merthyr Tydvil has yet had a reply as to how the Transport Commission, in the event of these coal resources being worked in the future, and if this railway is closed, can transport the coal away from the valley.
I am sorry if I have to be a little technical in explaining how geological forces have determined beforehand that these reserves of coal to which I have referred can only be transported away by means of this railway. Running along the bed of the valley in what is known to


us in South Wales as the Church fault. It runs roughly, as the valley does, north—south.
This fault has a downthrow east of between 90 and 95 yards, which meant the whole strata, including the coal seams, to the east. This railway is on the west side where the coal reserves are 90 to 95 yards nearer the surface than on the other side of the valley. I have asked the Transport Commission if it is aware of the geological disturbance. It is no exaggeration to say that our case, the details of our case and the facts that we have presented have been treated with contempt by the Commission.
I have done everything in my power to get these facts into the heads of the Transport Commission. The Parliamentary Secretary is smiling. We in that part of the country are a coalmining people. We know the distresses and the tragedies that the working of coal mean, but we are not afraid. On the physical facts of my case, I have not been contradicted in a single respect.
I have urged the Commission, for example, to consult a competent mining engineer who knows the district, but I have not been listened to. All that the Commission, apparently, has done is to consult a map of the Merthyr Valley and ask for figures, and rush to the conclusion that a few petty economies could be made. But ordinary maps reveal neither the treasures of the earth nor the effects of vast geological convulsions in the ages gone by, nor the communities where a strong mining tradition still exists.
Let me add, in case this may be used against me by someone who does not know the facts of the case, that there is another railway in the Merthyr Valley, which is known to us as the Taff Vale railway. But this railway is on the east side of the valley and is wholly inaccessible to the coal reserves to which I have drawn attention. The railways on the west and on the east of the valley meet at their common terminus, the Merthyr Tydfil station.
That station is a notorious bottleneck. This is recognised by every railwayman who knows it and also by the Commission, and much time has been spent by railway engineers seeking a solution to the apparently as yet insoluble problem

of the removal of the bottleneck. I am credibly informed by those who work in and around the station that the adjoining sidings are most painfully congested and can assimilate no more freight traffic. Furthermore, we have reason to fear that if the disputed railway on the west side is closed and abandoned, we of Merthyr Tydfil and the communities in the valley may be cut off almost completely by rail from the rest of the country.
The other railway that is left to us on the east side runs over land from under which for several generations coal has been mined on a very large scale. One part of the railway winds for hundreds of yards along a narrow shelf with a sheer drop of from 50 to 150 ft. to a river below. Subsidence is very well known to us in South Wales as an almost common occurrence. Subsidence here even on a modest scale would start what is known in mining as a creep in that mountain side, rising steeply above this precariously poised railway and out of commission will go for a long time the last railway left to us. That will mean the closing, inevitably, of coalmines and a number of other industries in the valley.
These facts have been made clear to the Commission. Indeed any competent mining engineer could have put the Transport Commission wise on this. But as I say, apparently the Commission does not like any kind of information when related to coalmining. It has ridden roughshod over the representations that have been made, including those by myself, which I put in detail in what I hoped was a conciliatory and most helpful spirit.
When I pressed for the justification, if any, by the Commission for closing down this line, its only case was that it would save about £3,600 a year in care and maintenance on this stretch of railway and an expenditure—this is its own figure, not mine—ofbetween £15.000 and £25.000 for the repair of the viaduct which has richly served not only our valley but the rest of the country for 70 years. These are all the economies that would result.
That is the case of the Commission. No other reason or justification has been given by them. The effect of these miserable, petty economies will, as I have said, mean the sterilising of these millions


of tons of coal and prevent the development of coalmining in a community that has strong mining tradition.
I have here the Commission's case in writing, and as I have said, I met the representatives of the Commission. I have pressed almost ad nauseam for a reply to the question that I have repeatedly put. It is, if this railway is destroyed, by what means, if any, does it propose to transport coal, estimated at half a million tons a year, worked on that side of our valley? I have had no answer to this question for the simple reason that there is no other practical way of dealing with this coal.
The Commission, apparently only too conscious of its power, is fully satisfied to ride roughshod—and that contemptuously—over the interests of my constituents and of the mining industry. To add insult to injury, I have been urged not to raise this matter on the Floor of the House, but to let it proceed to the Private Bill Committee upstairs, where counsel could be employed to argue our case. Merthyr Tydvil is almost entirely a working-class constituency. It is a small, and certainly not a rich, county borough. Our rates at the moment are 31s. 6d. in the £. Much of the properties in the district were built from 100 to 175 years ago in the hurly burly planless days of the Industrial Revolution.
This Leviathan, the Transport Commission, in its arrogance and with, of course, its unlimited financial resources, is asking my constituents through their borough council, to come here and to spend possibly, if not probably, some thousands of pounds which they can ill afford. They ought never to be asked, or placed in a position, to come here.
May I say how deeply disappointed are the people of Merthyr Tydvil with this body controlling one of our big nationalised industries. I need not enlarge, either here or elsewhere, upon the political history of Merthyr Tydvil and upon its splendid contribution to the growth of the Labour movement and to the spreading of the idea that collective ownership is the right thing. But this—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I thought the hon. Member stated that he was not going to pursue that. I hope he will not.

Mr. Davies: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, though I must say that I have not pursued it nearly as far as I should like to have done.
My constituents are very concerned about the future, particularly as it affects those thousands of our local miners, who travel long distances every day to their collieries far outside my constituency. Coal is there in our valley near their homes waiting for them to apply their skill, but this body is doing its utmost to prevent these men from exercising their skill and earn their livelihood near their homes. I hope that the House will insist on deleting Clause 31 from the Bill.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) into a dissertation about Merthyr Tydvil. The Bill seems to me quite a good one, and I have no criticism to make of any of the Clauses. I would support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) in his plea to the British Transport Commission to consider extending services of the type of the Starlight Special. We in the West Country have been asking for something of that sort for a very long time. Three years ago when we suggested it we were told that such a special cheap service had been tried on the run to Scotland and had failed, and that we could not have it. Now that it has been tried on the run to Scotland and proved successful, we hope that our suggestion may be considered anew.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) has come back, because I want to refer to several things he said. I protest most vigorously against his describing the railway police as a private police force. It is nothing of the sort. It is one of the biggest police forces in the country, and is on exactly the same footing as any other police force.

Mr. D. Jones: I described it as a semiprivate force. As the day-to-day management of the British Transport Commission's affairs is not the responsibility of the Minister but of the Commission, obviously its police force is a semi-private police force.

Mr. Wilson: There is no legal difference between the railway police force and any other police force in the country. The railway police force has the same form of oath as any other, and the same form of training. Its members go to police colleges just as do any other policemen.
The hon. Gentleman seemed very concerned about Clause 27, which, as he pointed out, repeals Section 54 (3) of the Transport Act, 1949. He seemed to think that it was very dangerous. He referred to the fact that the powers under that Act do not apply to most police forces. The reason, of course, is that the railway police are in a very special position and have to deal with very special circumstances. At first sight it does look rather drastic that a man can be arrested on suspicion and have to prove that he is innocent. When I first had to prosecute a man under that Section it was a bit of a shock, I must say, but after many years' experience of prosecuting under Section 53 of the Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Act, 1923, I can say that I have not had any doubt that justice was being done.

Mr. Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to learn that in 1952 the British Transport Commission police arrested 5,498 people and got less than 700 convictions?

Mr. Wilson: The point of using that Section is that in railway premises the odds are on the thief.

Mr. Jones: Perhaps there were not more convictions because the hon. Gentleman was not the solicitor in all the cases. I do not know.

Mr. Wilson: I cannot answer that, I am afraid, for I was not there at the time. However, I have had no doubt whatever about that Section working fairly. The railway police have a very difficult job to do. The premises they have to watch are scattered and, very often, are badly lit. There are all sorts of things about, such as stationary trucks, that help a thief to conceal himself. This power is a very useful one. I do not think that any great hardship would be caused if it were to be kept permanently. I understand that the Commission has agreed that it shall be of only temporary duration, but even if that

were not so I do not think there would be any great hardship.
I am very glad to see Clause 28, which deals with the level crossings. For a long time I have been wondering whether we tend to spend too much money on protection at level crossings. There is a multitude of level crossings. Many are on lines not very much used, and are pretty elaborate and cost a great deal of money. Railway authorities, faced with these costs, and because they are losing an excessive amount on the maintenance of level crossings on lines not much used, are inclined to think the branch lines redundant. This provision seems to provide an alternative. It has worked for years in Switzerland apparently satisfactorily, and I congratulate the British Transport Commission on making this provision in the Bill.
I do not propose to prolong the debate. A variety of topics have been discussed ranging from canals to level crossings. It is a good Bill and I congratulate the British Transport Commission on it.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I am sure that all hon. Members on this side of the House will be glad if, after the next election, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) has an opportunity of returning to his work of prosecuting on behalf of the British Railways, because the score will rise immediately. I was interested in his comment on the level crossings, because in my constituency it is the most frequent question put to me at public meetings. People are interested in the European Defence Community, they are interested in the balance of payments, they are interested in the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill, but above all they are interested in the level crossings of Lincoln.
The problem in Lincoln is that geography and history have combined to cut the city into two. There is uphill, and there is downhill where the factories are. About 100 years ago when the railways came to Lincoln, through bad planning the main railways, not only to the city but through into North Lincolnshire, were rammed across the principal streets of the city. At that time the blame was laid, as it is today for many problems, by some on the town clerk and by some on the Member of Parliament.
The town clerk was blamed for it because he was alleged, after having visited London and having been told by the promoters that there would be only the odd train or two a day and so there would be no difficulty, to have advised the council accordingly. The Member of Parliament was blamed because he was the man who refused to meet any railway people, regarding them as most devilish people who were desecrating the countryside. Colonel Sibthorpe was a diehard of the old type, a very famous figure. He hated the railways and it is written in his biography that in the last year of his life he compounded with the devil and took a return ticket to Newark.
Whatever the reason historically, the railways were built right across the main street, they are still there, and still for hours each day Lincoln is cut in half by the closing of the level crossing gates.

Mr. Osborne: indicated assent.

Mr. de Freitas: I see my hon. Friend —not my friend politically, but in other ways—the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) nodding his head. He is a neighbour of mine and knows well that it is impossible to cross Lincoln without waiting and viewing the oldest rolling stock on British Railways as it passes and repasses the level crossing.
What is to be done about this? In my opinion it is one of the first charges on the capital expenditure of British Railways. Nothing can be more important, because Lincoln is today an engineering city and it is with engineering that our future as a manufacturing and trading country lies. There must be considerable economic waste each day in Lincoln. So I put in my plea for more capital expenditure on the railways, particularly on the elimination of level crossings in the heart of our important cities.
At the beginning of this debate hon. Members referred to canals; in fact, the beginning of the debate was almost entirely waterborne. The hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) attacked the gondoliers of Pentonville Road or Marylebone Road who destroyed the canals he liked. There is a canal in Lincoln, and I want to know why it is not used more. Lincoln is connected by canals with the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and South Yorkshire coalfields, and we have right next to the canal

nearly all our heavy industry and our electricity generating stations. Yet I receive complaints each time I go to my constituency that the canals are empty of traffic. Surely there is certainly a prima facie case for more use being made of the canals.
On behalf of my constituents, but also on behalf of the people of this country who are dependent for their whole standard of living on the best use of our resources of transport, I plead for greater capital resources for the railways so that they can eliminate some of the worst features of the urban level crossings. I also want more capital development and more use made of our canals.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Garner Evans: I should like very much to emulate the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) in so far as I want to confine my remarks to one Clause of this Bill. If I do not blow quite as much steam as the hon. Member did it is because I want to talk about canals and not railways. I refer to Clause 12 of the Bill, which enables the Shropshire Union Canal to sell the water for certain industrial purposes. That is a most dishonourable Clause.
No doubt the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) will disagree with me about this, but I must disagree with him on one point too. I should have thought that every Scotsman would have known that the Shropshire Union Canal is the most beautiful canal in Wales. Its waters come from the Severn and the Dee, and I cannot understand why it is described as an English canal. It is certainly the most beautiful canal in the country and it would be an act of terrible vandalism if it were ever abandoned.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) spoke of the pleasures of boating on the canals as a result of the adaptation of boats by the use of the internal combustion engine. We do not even need an engine on parts of the Shropshire Union Canal. At least one pleasure boat is drawn by horses between Llangollen and Llandyssul. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) said about towpaths. It would be shocking if in abandoning these canals, and the Shropshire Union Canal in particular, the Commission should allow the towpaths to fall


into such decay as to become unusable, not only for boating but also for walks. These stretches of canal in North Wales are quite unsurpassed in their beauty. This Bill refers to only one Act of 1944. In 1944 we had a second Act dealing with the Shropshire Union Canal. Under that Act the L.M.S., as it then was, and the Transport Commission now, had power to abandon the canal completely. The canal company was prevented from selling water from the canal for 10 years, but it was given power to close the cut altogether. It would be shocking if that were to be allowed to happen.
Looking up the HANSARD reports, I find that those two Bills were discussed in a very short time on Second Reading and that 98 per cent, of the time taken in the debate was devoted not to the canals, Which was the real subject matter of the legislation, but to a quarrel between the Railway Clerks Association and the railway companies. It could almost be said that the Bills went through on the nod. I hate to think what would happen if the Commission were to abandon this stretch of water. It would become an ugly streak of slime down that beautiful Llangollen Valley. Tens of thousands of people would be deprived of most delightful pleasures which they now enjoy. I make a most urgent plea to the Commission not only to keep this canal open but to keep it as a navigable waterway for pleasure craft. More and more pleasure craft are coming up the canal, particularly from Stoke, and great pleasure is had by those who own the boats.
I also make a plea to the Commission to look to the towpaths and the hedges along the towpaths in order to keep those pleasure walks open. Finally, I ask them to make a more positive approach to the problem of the canals. I am sure that in 20 years' time, boating, canoeing and the like will be almost as popular in this country as cycling has become in the last 30 years. If only the Commission could see the enormous potentiality for pleasure of these inland waterways, I believe a great step forward would be taken.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. James Harrison: I should like to suggest to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson)

—who is not in his place at present but has been here for most of the debate —that what my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) and myself put down as an Instruction to the Committee on this Bill was not drafted to prevent the railway police from retaining their present special powers. What we had in mind was not to limit the time that those powers could be enjoyed by the railway police, but to make sure that the powers came up for reconsideration by this House in five years' time.
I should like to call the attention of the Minister particularly to the question of local rates, which have quite a lot to do with one of the Clauses of this Bill. I shall speak of the closing of canals and the sequel to this almost continual list which comes forward in nearly every Bill presented by the Commission. Each Bill usually includes the closing of a number of canals. The hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Garner Evans) mentioned that we had a wonderful scenic canal through beautiful countryside which he hopes the Commission will keep in good repair, otherwise, this particularly beautiful canal will sink into a slimy sewer, or something of that nature.
The point to which I want to draw attention is that, in the industrial areas, where these canals, or stretches of them, are continually being closed, almost inevitably in a very short space of time they degenerate into open sewers. The next stage of the problem is that we have complaints from residents around the canal about nuisances and the danger to children from drowning, and then the local ratepayers have to find considerable sums of moneys in order to do away with the nuisance of a closed canal.
In Nottingham, we have a particularly bad example of that process. A canal, which has been very much in use until recent times, was suddenly deserted by traffic, and I am quite sure that the British Transport Commission could not sustain the cost of the repairs to that canal simply by letting it out to pleasure boats. There would not be a sufficient income from that source to enable them to keep the canal in decent repair. Within a very short space of time, this canal degenerated into a stinking sewer, and now we are faced with the problem of having to pay, in the main from local


resources, terrific sums of money to obviate that particular nuisance.
Therefore, I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to Clause 14 of the Bill, which deals with the prevention of nuisances when certain waters are enclosed. I earnestly beg for an examination of this position carefully and closely, because many evils arise when a canal is closed, and particularly is this the case where we have vast conglomerations of population in the big industrial areas of this country.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. John Baldock: I want to revert from the question of canals to make a few observations about diesel rail cars. Although I am myself a great lover of steam engines in all forms, and from personal inclination greatly regret the displacement of the incomparably fascinating steam locomotives by electrical and diesel engines, I have been interested for a considerable time in small rail cars on less busy stretches of our railway system.
The reduction of traffic on a branch line in my own constituency—from Market Harborough to Melton Mowbray —to workmen's trains only, one in the morning and one in the evening, together with the threat that even these will be suspended in the near future, so that that line will be entirely closed to passenger traffic, has made me even more particularly interested in this subject.
But this is a general problem, and not one confined by any means to my own constituency, for branch lines have been and are being closed—and it is predicted that they will be closed in increasing numbers—all over the country. The alternative arrangements are frequently by no means satisfactory. Often, no buses are provided as alternatives, although I know it is difficult to get bus companies to operate buses in remote rural areas, because it is difficult to do so at anything but a loss.
The fact remains that by the shutting down of passenger services on these small branch lines rural transport facilities are actually deteriorating, at a time when one expects all kinds of services in the country to be brought more and more up to the level of those enjoyed in the larger towns and the built-up areas. The deterioration of transport facilities in the

countryside is not only an impediment to agricultural development and makes it increasingly difficult to attract people to the country, but it gives rise to personal hardship.
I saw a case only recently of an old-age pensioner who himself is none too fit, and who wishes to travel to the Market Harborough Hospital every week to see his wife. That should be only a very short journey if the railway were working as it used to do, but it now entails an 80mile journey. He has to go to Leicester, then to Market Harborough, and then back to Leicester and back to where he started from. That must be one of a great number of cases of personal hardship brought about by not having satisfactory rail travelling.
These circumstances make a very strong case for running light diesel cars on lines of this kind, which are still open to goods traffic. Why should they not be kept open for passenger traffic as well? It would entail very little capital expenditure, no additional maintenance costs and very few extra staff. The track is already kept up for goods trains, so there would be no additional expense there at all. No station buildings are required, other than a platform for people to board and leave the trains, and in every case they are there already.
In many cases the station buildings are there, and could be dismantled if required. The only expenditure involved would be in the provision of one or two light rail cars for each of these stretches of line. Few extra staff would be wanted. But some alterations would have to be made. I do not see why we should not strike the fetters of anachronistic regulations off the railways. One man is permitted to drive a passenger bus and issue tickets and collect tickets. He is not equipped with a dead man's handle, alternative braking system, whistles, flags or any of the things which seem always to be required on railways, however small the train. These one-man vehicles do not appear to be involved in any accident other than those in which other vehicles are implicated.
Why should not the same arrangement be applied to the railways, at this stage of the 20th Century? Why should not one man drive a train and issue and collect tickets in the same way as with


buses? It may be said that the trade unions would not like that, but the choice is not between fully-manned trains and stations and diesel rail cars with a self-contained driver. It is a choice between diesel rail cars and no trains at all on passenger services.
In the circumstances, I should have thought it would have been in the interests of everyone concerned to run trains of that kind. It would provide employment for one or two men where there is no passenger service employment at all. I hope that my hon. Friend and the Minister will examine the proposals again with a view to retaining, restoring and improving passenger services on small branch lines, which have been or are to be dosed, and so benefit rural communities which are in danger of losing the passenger services to which they have been accustomed.

9.35 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): The responsibility of my right hon. Friend as regards this Bill is confined to the fact that he has given his consent to its being introduced under Section 9 of the Transport Act, 1947, but it is customary and conventional—and, I think, convenient—that the Minister or his representative should say something in general terms about the policy which is implicit in the British Transport Commission's annual Bill.
Tonight's debate is certainly unique in one respect. There has not been in any of the previous years—and I have looked up the debates of previous years—such a series of speeches directing attention to the importance to the country, from every point of view of our inland water system. When I went to this Department a short time ago my right hon. Friend told me to get hold of the file dealing with the canals and inland waterways and to study it for myself. I am very glad indeed, that sc many hon. Gentlemen from different parts of the country have today all referred to the great importance, even in the 20th century, of the canals.
Those of us who are interested in history remember that the canals were a feature of the early industrial system. They came before the railways, and it was only possible for this country to develop its coal and iron resources in the

way it did because of the enterprise of rich men and the skill of engineers in providing what was then the finest canal system in the world for the service of the industries which were springing up. I think it is natural that we should consider with some concern how little use is being made of our canals at present. Hon. Gentlemen have emphasised that the canals would still be useful for transport purposes.
I have also seen the memorandum about the canals which has been circulated to all hon. Members. I was most interested—and very much surprised—to find that in a large number of cases canal transport is still more rapid than rail. Certainly, when one considers how heavy the charges now are for the transportation of coal and of other bulky and heavy things I myself feel that there should be great scope for the continued use and development of canals. Other countries certainly seem to find them very useful in the 20th Century. I well remember the attention given by Bomber Command to the canals of Germany during the war. I understand that large sums of money have been spent in Germany in reconstructing, developing and improving their canal system.
Other hon. Gentlemen have referred to the great charm of the canals in the English countryside. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) referred to the pleasure which he, like so many others, derives from going on the canals. The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison) referred to what happened to them when they go out of use. What has been one of the charms and beauties of the English countryside can then become a noisome drain. Corruptio optimi pessima.
I am glad that so many hon. Members should have referred to the importance of the canals and I can give the House an assurance that the sense of the House will be strongly represented to the Transport Commission. I have no reason to suppose that it is not interested in the matter, and I understand that now appointments have recently been made on the advertising side, but it relies not so much on the kind of advertisement used by the railways as in trying to keep in close touch with large commercial and industrial users, and to promote the use of the canals in that direction.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) asked what was the position with regard to railway reorganisation. He will probably remember that it is only very recently that the present Chairman of the Transport Commission took office. The Commission is required to produce a scheme for railway reorganisation by 6th May of this year. We know that it has long been studying the matter, and that since the present Chairman took over he has been pressing on with it, in a keen desire to make certain that the scheme can be prepared by the date provided for in the Act. At present, we have no detailed information on the subject, and it is only constitutionally right that both the Department and Parliament should await the production of the scheme.
Several hon. Members have referred to the proposal to introduce lifting barriers experimentally, and some doubt has been expressed as to whether they will not result in a diminution of safety. There was also an Instruction which would have made it obligatory upon the Minister to obtain the consent of local authorities to their introduction. We should find very considerable difficulty in accepting that directive as it stands, in view of the Minister's statutory responsibility for safety in these matters. At the same time, I can give the House a complete assurance that before my right hon. Friend agrees to the introduction of these lifting barriers there will be the fullest consultation with the highway authority, and the local authority where it is not the highway authority.
The views expressed by these authorities will be given the most sympathetic consideration before the Minister's consent is given to any application, but the responsibility for investigating these applications rests finally upon the inspecting officers of railways, who can be relied upon to ensure that a high standard of public safety is preserved and that in places where lifting barriers are not suitable—as, for example, in cases where the line has been electrified —permission will not be given.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: While the final responsibility must be that of the Minister, it is desirable that the duty to consult with local authorities is provided for in the Bill. It should also

contain a requirement that any change of this kind should be advertised locally, so that anyone who wants to make a complaint to the local authority or the Minister may be able to do so.

Mr. Molson: We will gladly consider that matter, and it is a matter of detail which can properly be considered when the Bill goes to Committee upstairs. I certainly give an unqualified assurance that the Minister would not give permission without consulting the local authority and the highway authority who are locally concerned, but the final responsibility would have to rest with the Minister of Transport.
In just the same way, some doubt was expressed, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) in the case of a level crossing in his constituency, about whether the provisions of the Bill relieving the Transport Commission of some of its obligations for keeping watch and ward over level crossings could properly be accepted and those obligations lifted. I hope that the House will realise how important it is that we should enable the Commission to carry through reforms which will reduce the very heavy overhead expenses which they have to bear at present. The vast number of these level crossings where at present the Transport Commission is obliged to keep a watchman on duty in total adds immensely to costs. I hope, therefore, that in principle the House will be willing to accept the general lines of the Bill.

Mr. D. Jones: rose—

Mr. Molson: I will come to the point which the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) raised. The matters which he raised today will be fully considered by the Committee upstairs. We do not want to go from one extreme to the other, although I am bound to say that in the case of the crossings to which he referred, I think those who live and have lived for many years beside the railways will be aware of the dangers which are involved where the line is a busy one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) referred to the closing of a number of branch lines and raised again tonight a matter which he raised when I had to seek to justify the


closing of a branch line in his constituency—The use of diesels. The Transport Commission is at present exploring the increased use of diesel engines for many purposes, especially for shunting, and in the case of reasonably busy lines, where it is possible to keep the engine running for a great many hours of the day, there is no doubt at all that the diesel engine has very considerable advantages over the steam engine.
For example, the Commission has given authority for an expenditure of some £2 million on the construction of light-weight diesel trains, and these multiple-unit trains will be introduced in the West Riding of Yorkshire, West Cumberland, on the Edinburgh to Glasgow line, Lincolnshire, East Anglia and from Newcastle to Middlesbrough. But the special advantages of the diesel—its quick acceleration, its greater cleanliness and lower cost per unit-mile—are advantages which do not show themselves to the greatest extent in the case of branch lines ir. rural districts.
The competition there is between the diesel engine on the lines and the local motor buses, and an increasing proportion of the omnibuses are now propelled by diesel engines. The costs of maintaining the stations, the signalling and the lines tend in nearly all cases to make it more costly to keep the branch lines open and to run diesels upon them than to use road transport.
I think that I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised of general interest. I come now to the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies). He told us that he was a miner and a mining engineer and that the effect of the closing of the branch line, or shall I say, the failure of the Transport Commission to reopen this branch line, which has been closed since 1951 when a viaduct collapsed⁁

Mr. S. O. Davies: rose⁁

Mr. Molson: I cannot give way. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman for a long time and I am going to give him his answer now.

Mr. Davies: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Gentleman told the House at considerable length that the Commission had ridden roughshod over local opinion, and he said that as an ex-miner and a mining engineer he could assure the House that this would result in the sterilisation of several million tons of coal. All I can say about that is that the Coal Board is of the contrary opinion. They have made it quite plain that they have no objection to this line being closed, as the hon. Gentleman very well knows.
He quoted from a letter written to him by Mr. D. M. Rees, of the National Coal Board, in which it was explained that what his representative said was, that they could not object to the closure. That was the particular view of the National Coal Board who are definitely not in the hands of the Commission.

Mr. Davies: But did they agree to the closure?

Mr. Molson: The hon. Gentleman then read part of the last sentence of that letter—

Mr. Davies: Has the hon. Gentleman read it?

Mr. Molson: It read:
With regard to the development of these resources they are well known to us and there is every possibility that they will be worked in the near future—
It was on that point, although there is no comma there, that the hon. Gentleman made a special effort to mislead the House as to the rest of the sentence. The rest of the sentence says:
But I am assured by my production director that the projected closure would not prejudice the working of the resources.

Mr. Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When an hon. Member is either charged directly or by implication with having deliberately lied to the House, has he any protection from the Chair?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear mention of the word "lie." I understand that the hon. Gentleman who had the Floor of the House was replying to the debate. He is entitled to do so without interruption.

Mr. Davies: I suppose it is useless to ask him to read the fourth paragraph of that letter. Read it out boy, come on.

Mr. Molson: Mr. Lyn Jones—I say this for your information, Mr. Speaker—outlined his personal position as a member of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, but as also deputy-chairman of the National Coal Board, he categorically assured the members of the deputation that his Board had not "agreed" to the closing of the branch line under notice. What they had said was that they could not object to the closure, and that was the particular view 'of the National Coal Board who are definitely not in the hands of the Transport Commission. So much for the argument of the hon. Gentleman that the closure of this line would, in fact, sterilise the coal to which he was referring. It is not the view of the Coal Board, who, I venture to think, are probably better informed upon this subject than is the hon. Member.
As regards the general convenience of the public and the charge that the Transport Commission rode roughshod over public opinion, the matter was referred by them to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Wales and Mon-mouth. They referred the matter to a sub-committee, which sat in Cardiff and consisted largely of Welshmen from the neighbourhood. The sub-committee unanimously agreed to report to the consultative committee that no grounds could be found for supporting the objections, and on 15th January, 1954, the consultative committee unanimously adopted the sub-committee's report.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Bill was in the Vote Office some days before the consultative committee had an opportunity even of inquiring, and that the members of the committee were not from my district? I say that in case the hon. Gentleman intended to imply that they were from my district.

Mr. Molson: I should have thought that they were not only from the hon. Member's district, but almost from his parish.
As regards the point about the Bill, this matter was considered by the consultative committee. The chairman expressed the view that as the Bill, if passed, would be permissive, it would in no way affect the committee's consideration of the case; and furthermore, that

as there was a definite assurance that there was no intention of anticipating the committee's findings, no action was called for by them.
I hope that the House will now be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading and that the many important matters of detail which have been raised by hon. Members will, I am sure, be fully considered by the Committee upstairs.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 31."— [Mr. S. O. Davies.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Molson: On a point of order. I was under the impression, Mr. Speaker, that these Instructions had to be moved before 9 o'clock if consideration was to be given to them.

Mr. Speaker: If they are opposed, they cannot be taken after 9 o'clock; but if they are unopposed they may be taken.

MEDICAL AUXILIARIES (REGULATIONS)

Postponed proceeding resumed on Question,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Medical Auxiliaries) Regulations, 1954 (S.I., 1954, No. 55), dated 18th January, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th January, be annulled.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I was explaining, when last I had the honour of addressing the House, earlier this evening, the Regulations which we are praying against this evening arose out of the recommendations of the Cope Committee, which was set up my my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). In making its recommendations on the subject of the qualifications for auxiliaries to be employed in the Health Service, the Cope Committee made the main recommendation that registration machinery should be set up that would be separate entirely from the Ministry of Health. They further explained the qualifications that, in their view, auxiliaries in certain fields should establish before being employed in the National Health Service.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) announced in the House in 1951 the then Government's acceptance in principle of the recommendations of the Cope Committee, and also that there would be consultations and discussions with all the professional bodies concerned in working out the form of any registration machinery. My right hon. Friend also said that a circular was to be sent out to the hospital authorities explaining the Government's attitude towards the Committee's recommendations, and also explaining that in the Government's view the qualifications required by the Cope Committee for these different fields of auxiliaries' work were desirable qualifications.
When the late Government left office representations were being received from some of the professional organisations complaining that the Cope Committee had not adequately considered their particular point of view. It was well known that there were very real differences of opinion among some of the organisations involved, but nevertheless I understand that the present Minister or his immediate predecessor sent out a memorandum to the professional bodies concerned, very largely based upon the Cope Committee's recommendations, and invited their comments.
At that time is was impossible to get any agreement amongst the many professional bodies, and I do not think that anyone could be altogether surprised at that. This covers a wide field of organisation and services at very varying stages of development. I need only read out the list of auxiliaries covered by the Regulations and Members of the House will understand how difficult it would be to frame Regulations covering all of them. The list includes: chiropodists, dietitians, medical laboratory technicians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, radiographers, remedial gymnasts and speech therapists. So it will be seen that a great variety of medical auxiliaries is covered by these Regulations, and, therefore, it is not surprising that it proved impossible to get agreement amongst the different bodies.
In the meantime, I understand that hospital authorities have been accepting the recommendations offered to them by

the late Government to make new appointments in the hospital field broadly on the recommendations of the Cope Committee. But now we are presented with these Regulations. The first point I want to put to the Minister is to ask him why he felt it necessary to introduce Regulations of this kind, which, as I will explain in a moment, makes him the arbiter of standards and qualifications in quite a wide medical field, a duty of which I should have thought he would have wished to divest himself rather than attach it to himself. In view of the fact that negotiations are to be attempted with the different professional bodies again in the hope of establishing some more permanent form of legislation, it seems strange to us that he should have thought it desirable to introduce these Regulations.
I hope the Minister will explain to us why he felt it necessary to bring these Regulations forward and whether he regards them as a temporary measure until some other arrangements can be arrived at. If they are of a temporary character, was it really necessary to bother the House with them at all?
The third paragraph lays down the qualifications that the Minister would accept for these various auxiliaries in the Health Service. I do not think anyone will take any objection to the first two sub-paragraphs which deal with medical auxiliaries who are already working in the Health Service. I have not heard of any suggestion from any quarter that those who are already employed in the Health Service should be displaced because of any new standard of qualification at which we might arrive. I do not think there is any difference of opinion about that.
Rather odd are the later sub-paragraphs of paragraph 3 of these Regulations, the first detail of which lays it down that the Minister shall be the approving body for courses of training and examinations. Later sub-paragraphs lay it down that certain bodies outside this country shall also be accepted for certification, and sub-paragraph (4) gives the Minister completely unfettered freedom to add to the list of accepted practitioners anyone he cares to put on the list.
I do not think that any Minister could have wider powers than the right hon.
Gentleman takes to himself in sub-paragraph (4). There may be some good reason why he feels it necessary to do so, and I am quite sure that he would not have taken these powers without some good reason. Therefore, I hope he will be able to explain to us just precisely why he does it.
I wish to call attention to a matter which to many of us is even more important. We are obviously concerned with standards for this very varied group of auxiliaries because of their importance for the patient. That is what we in this House must be mainly concerned about, and we are naturally anxious to ensure that standards of qualification should be properly maintained.
Therefore, when we see in the First Schedule to these Regulations that two standards of qualification with regard to physiotherapy are apparently to be accepted by the Minister as of equal worth, it gives us some very real anxiety. The requirements set out in column (2) with regard to qualifications for the employment of a physiotherapist in the Health Service are that:
He shall have passed the qualifying examination of (1) the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy after attending a full-time day course of training at a school recognised by the Society "—
the course for the Chartered Society is, I believe, a three-year course, if notlonger—
or (2) the Faculty of Physiotherapists after attending a full-time day course of training at a school recognised by the Faculty "—
another body run almost on parallel lines with the Chartered Society—
or (3) the Physiotherapists Association after attending a full-time day course of training in physiotherapy of not less than three months duration and working thereafter as a full-time physiotherapist in a hospital for not less than 2years.
It is clear that there must be a very great difference in standard between the physiotherapist who has passed the qualifying examination of either of the first two bodies referred to in this Schedule as compared with those who have qualified under the Physiotherapists Association. I do not think it is in any way attacking the Physiotherapists Association, which has attempted to make some provision for those who took up of this kind during the war years, to say that there is a very real distinction indeed between the standards of the two bodies.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): I would like to make this point clear, because, to some extent, it is the crux of this argument. The hon. Gentleman will realise, of course, that whereas the certificates of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and that of the Faculty of Physiotherapists are accepted, the Physiotherapists Association have to have, as far as the First Schedule is concerned, the additional qualification of service and, presumably, satisfactory service, of two years in a hospital.

Mr. Blenkinsop: That may be, but, even so, many of those who are concerned with this matter, both on the medical side and on the lay side, are far from satisfied that the requirement of two years' experience in a hospital is anything like adequate compared with the long period of detailed training provided by the Chartered Society. I should be the last to urge that only one organisation should be recognised for this sort of purpose, but I think it is vitally important that we should protect standards. I would put to the Minister in a friendly spirit, so that he may give an explanation and so inform the House, whether there is not a danger, if these Regulations are accepted by the House, and become the general basis of operation throughout the hospitals, that the hospital authorities will appoint those with lower standards of qualification, and be able to employ staff at lower rates of pay.
This is surely a matter that must be of real concern. Hospital authorities are extremely anxious to save money wherever they can. I do not blame them. Is there not some danger that, if these Regulations go through, they may seek to fill their complement of staff with those who have not the same standard of training and do not command the same rates of pay, and that they will do so to achieve financial savings? I hope that will not be true. Nevertheless, it is a danger the Minister must see exists.
It is because of our anxiety about these matters that we put down this Prayer, to get an explanation from the Minister of what his intentions are and of what action he intends to take about setting up some more satisfactory registration machinery in the future. I am assuming that he intends these Regulations to operate for a relatively short period, and that he intends to replace them with more


permanent provisions. Naturally, we are hoping to get the agreement of the professional bodies to set up registration machinery. I have just suggested that the Regulations cover such a wide variety of bodies that it may not be practicable to get one central body to cover the lot, because they are of varying stages of development and standing. We may have to consider the establishment of registration machinery for only one or two sections of auxiliaries, and consider others later.
However, I should have thought that the Minister would have agreed with me that it is very desirable that he should divest himself as soon as possible of responsibility for deciding the standards of qualification and training. Ministers have assured the House that they do not wish to enter into other medical fields. That was very natural and desirable. I hope that the present Minister will do the same, at least over as much of the field as he practically can. By these Regulations he claps upon his own shoulders a responsibility of which I hope he will divest himself.
So I move the Prayer to elicit information from the Minister, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will express their views, varying views as they may very well be, so that we may have a chance of discussing this important question of standards of qualifications in the National Health Service.

10.15 p.m.

Sir Frederick Messer: I beg to second the Motion.
The peculiarities of the negative Resolution procedure give the impression that when a Prayer is put down it is put down in a hostile spirit. The truth is that it is the only means by which we can get information that cannot possibly be in the Regulations. In seconding this Motion, therefore, I want to pose one or two questions, the answers to which will then be on record.
In my view the step taken by the Minister is very important. Recognition of the medical auxiliaries is long overdue. They now form, and have done for a long time, an important part of our Health Service. They seem to have developed rather accidentally and I realise that it is impossible for us to expect that

we can at the present time get what we have in the older ranks of the profession, such as the General Medical Council, the General Nursing Council, the Society of Pharmacists and other recognised bodies.
At the same time, we have to be careful about the standard of attainment, for these people come into actual contact with the patients and they have a tremendous responsibility. This is not so much true of the speech therapists as the chiropodists. There are two bodies, the Council and the Society. I do not know what difference there is in the standard of attainment necessary to pass a qualifying examination, but everybody will agree that it is risky if we give recognition to a standard in that field which might have serious consequences.
I know that we are faced with many difficulties here, one of which is a shortage of those in the professions. So far as chiropody is concerned, there is urgent need for an extension of that service and the Minister has taken a step forward in bringing these Regulations, in that he is introducing into the National Health Service a part of the service that should have been in at the very beginning.
One of the difficulties of our ageing population is that of the care of their feet, and yet chiropody is not recognised as a free service. I am hoping that as time goes on these different bodies will get together and that there will be a measure of agreement as to their standards. But if chiropody is important, physiotherapy is much more important, for now there is usually included in the physiotherapy department of a modern hospital the actinic rays—the ultra-violet rays, the infra-red rays, and so on, apart altogether from the electro-therapy, massage and physiotherapy.
In that field there is a danger that if people who are not qualified are given work which is beyond their knowledge actual damage might result. I do not know how true it is, but I have heard it argued that the standard of the chartered society is really too high, that it is an unreal standard and that the period of training is too long and is not required. That may be true. I have heard the same thing said about the faculty, but I have also heard it said that the Association of Physiotherapists has a standard which is too low. The Minister has attempted to meet that by saying that if a physio-


therapist has had three months' training and two years' experience as a physiotherapist in a hospital, then under the Regulations he or she can be admitted and recognised for employment by the employing authority.
Perhaps the Minister will say whether he is going to issue any instruction or circular to ensure that two years experience in a hospital as a physiotherapist means that that two years will be two years of the type of work that would be done by a fully qualified physiotherapist, for in the physiotherapy department there is a lot of work of a repetitive character that does not call for a high standard of qualification. If satisfaction can be given on these points, I am sure that it will be welcomed.
I am not seconding this Prayer for the rejection of the Regulations because I feel that they ought to be rejected, but because it is necessary to move the Prayer to obtain the information that we require. The Minister may have done one good thing. He may have shown these auxiliary organisations that the time has arrived when, by some means, they should get together to agree on a form of council that can be a registering body. If that can be done, good will result. I am hoping that on these points we shall have satisfaction not merely for ourselves, but also for those engaged in the profession.

10.22 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): It is desirable that in a matter which is as complicated as this that the House should have at the earliest possible stage a statement from the Minister on the meaning of the Regulations in so far as he can make that statement in answer to some of the questions that have been raised. In the same way as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) did not launch an enthusiastic attack on the Regulations so, to preserve the symmetry, I will not make an enthusiastic defence of them.
Quite frankly, I regard part of this procedure as unsatisfactory, and I am quite prepared to explain why to the House. All that I will say is that in my view this is the best, or, anyway, the least undesirable, of the courses that are open to me in this situation.
The effect of these Regulations, which come into operation unless they are

annulled by the House—and it is important that people outside the House should realise the point made by the seconder of the Motion that, according to our procedure, the only way in which one can obtain information on these matters is to put down a Prayer which, on the face of it, opposes the Regulations themselves—is to make it illegal for any board or committee, hospital or local health authority to employ an auxiliary who is not qualified in accordance with the Regulations. We must also take note of the fact that these authorities are left completely free to select the persons they employ and they are of course most competent bodies who will take into account all the matters they should when they appoint an employee.
As the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East said, these Regulations originally arose from the recommendations of the various committees under Mr., now Sir, Zachary Cope, appointed in 1949 by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and four Ministers of Health have been concerned in one capacity or another with this problem.
In effect the Cope Report was in two parts. The first looked at the acceptability of the existing systems of training and qualification and suggested what should, and to some extent what should not, be regarded as adequate for employment in the National Health Service. They were secondly concerned with the longer term problem of identifying qualified auxiliaries and supervising training and qualifications for the future. They recommended in short that this, the second part, of the problem should be the duty of a statutory body under the aegis, as these matters usually are, of the Privy Council.
That Report had a number of minority reports attached to it. The minority reports, including in particular the physiotherapists which have been mentioned tonight, were in general in favour of a separate registering body for each of the different groups and were rather critical of the council proposals that the Cope Committee put forward.
That was the situation which had to be dealt with by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) when he was Minister. By and large his solution, with which I do not quarrel


at all, was to say that we should have a look at the majority recommendations as a basis for legislation and in the meantime have a sort of standstill position so that the recommendations of the Cope Committee could be taken for future entrants into the Health Service. As I say, I do not quarrel with that at all, but I invite the House to notice that that was laid down by circular. Whatever may be said of regulations as an unsatisfactory form of legislation, at least that is part of the ordinary body of the law of this country and nothing could be more unsatisfactory, other than for a short time, than Government by circular. I am sure the right hon. Member agrees and he meant his circular to last for a short time.
The General Election came a month or two later and proposals were put forward by my predecessor, now the Lord Privy Seal, in December, 1951, to the various interested bodies. Those proposals modified the Cope Report. Broadly, without going into detail, they were in favour so far as the representation on the council was concerned, of the medical auxiliaries and throughout that year discussion took place. I became Minister of Health in May of that year, 1952.
At the end of that year, almost exactly a year ago, the problem was brought to me and I was told, "We have tried to get agreement on the basis of the 1951 suggestions "—which were more favourable to medical auxiliaries than the Cope Report—" and, with the best will in the world we have failed, and, by and large, the position remains as it was in the Cope Report." I was by this time the fourth Minister of Health, and I had to take a decision. It is this decision which is the essence of the dilemma which I put to the House tonight. I am entitled to say to the House, "If you do not accept my solution—which I do not say is perfect—which of the other solutions do you prefer?"
As I see it, there were four things that I could do. I could push ahead with Cope, either on its original basis or as modified in December, 1951, and today, in face of the known hostility of a great number, including some of the most important, of the bodies concerned, which would clearly have been disastrous. Secondly, I could have established—

assuming that one could have obtained time for the necessary legislation—a system of statutory registrations which would have given different registers for each of the groups concerned.
In my view, there are two overwhelming objections to that. The first is that there must be consultation in between the groups; that is to say, the qualifications for the groups must not be considered in isolation but as manifold auxiliary divisions. The second is the sheer practical difficulty that in many of the cases the numbers concerned are much too small to justify or to support financially such a proposal. There are, for example, only 500 dietitians and 400 speech therapists.
The third proposal was to do nothing. Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought that the opening speech on this Prayer hinted that that was perhaps the right thing to do. I could have gone on relying on the 1951 Circular, although government by circular is a very bad thing, in which I am sure the House would agree with me. It had become abundantly clear, as indeed one would expect, that isolated cases of unfairness were arising as a result of the circular, which prevented people from obtaining posts in the Health Service which otherwise they might have had. The right hon. Member for Middles-brough, East intended his circular to be temporary, carrying on with negotiations. After a year of hard work that proved useless, and is not a course one would commend to the House.
So I am left with the powers under the 1946 Health Act, Section 66 of which empowers me to lay down qualifications. This is not a new procedure. It is not the first time that a Minister of Health has used that Section. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale used it for the qualifications of health visitors and for other purposes under the 1948 Act. But I should also say that I regarded it as highly undesirable that the Minister of Health should concern himself with qualifications in this sort of field, unless it were unavoidable.
The whole basis of my case is that this is only a temporary measure, and must be considered as such, and that as soon as possible the Minister of Health should not have to concern himself with this sort of standard. Therefore, I decided, and announced to the House as I did,


that I proposed to take what we may call "course 4" of the ones I have indicated. I sent my rough ideas to the organisations concerned, asked for their comments and have told them in recent correspondence that I intend to set up a working party to continue the probe, and I am hopeful of results, to try to get agreement. It is important to note that a solution did emerge from the organisations concerned, partly, I have no doubt as a result of the catalyst of these Regulations.
Although this point was not raised, but because the debate will be read outside the House, I should make it plain that we have excluded almoners, although the Cope Committee included them. I think that is right, because most people would agree that an almoner is not a medical auxiliary, but a social worker in the medical sphere, and I do not think it would be proper to deal with them in these terms. We have included remedial gymnasts who were included under the physiotherapists' umbrella by the Cope Committee as a result of our subsequent examination.
The points raised by the mover and seconder of the Motion largely concerned the admission in certain circumstances of the Physiotherapists' Association in the First Schedule. It is most important, as, indeed, I interrupted the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East to make clear, that it should be clearly understood that the qualification of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy is accepted, and the qualification from the Faculty of Physiotherapists is accepted. In the case of the Physiotherapists Association there has to be something in addition. I went into that very carefully, and it has been included in the Regulations as "working thereafter as a full time physiotherapist in a hospital for not less than two years."
It is as if, in another field, we had said that we would take any form of degree from an established university, but from a faculty which might not have as wide a repute we would only take first-class honours. I am satisfied that although the number involved is small they are people mainly, if not exclusively, who have been employed in service hospitals, and those mainly, if not exclusively, are ex-Service men, to whom it would be

wrong to deny the possibility of service under the National Health scheme.
That, in part, answers the question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) about the standards of the Physiotherapists Association. I would also quote to him paragraph 462 of the Cope Report, which says:
We were told that the Physiotherapists Association's examinations are conducted by an examinations board. During the year 1948, 19 persons sat for the examination and five passed. In 1949, 45 sat and 18 passed.
So it does not really look from that as if the qualification is one that is lightly granted. It is also fair to point out that the Cope Committee was appointed nearly five years ago, and it may well be that the standards of some of the bodies concerned have considerably improved since then.
But the most important thing to remember, in my view, is to consider what is to happen after 31st March—that is, from Regulation 3 (3) and the Second Schedule. A number of bodies are there laid down as appropriate bodies, and if someone has, first of all, attended a course of training, secondly has passed the examination, and, thirdly, if that course of training and examination have been approved by the Minister, then he may qualify for the National Health Service.
Let me make it absolutely clear that inclusion in the Second Schedule does not mean that I will necessarily approve the syllabus of the bodies concerned, and it is right that I should tell the House— because this, I think, is the main worry— what I have in mind. First, approval has to be given fairly quickly—that is, before 1st April—to those existing courses of training which are adequate, so that students who have already embarked on a course shall not be frustrated. All the bodies have been asked to send to me, by 28th February, particulars of their courses and examinations.
More important than that, I must look at the qualifications of these bodies for the future. I intend to invite those who specially advise me in this field, assisted by my consultant advisers, to examine the course and the examinations of the representative training schools, where they exist, so that I may be advised upon these matters. Since we have been most closely concerned with physiotherapists,


perhaps I can say that in this field I will ask the advice of my consultant adviser, Dr. Cooksey, the Director of the Department of Physical Medicine at King's, and also of Sir Harry Platt, Emeritus Professor of Orthopaedics at Manchester.
The right hon. Gentleman and, of course, his hon. Friend who have been at the Ministry, know the standing of those two names I have mentioned. They know perfectly well that it is inconceivable that they would give me advice that would be inappropriate in this field, and they know also that it is equally inconceivable that the Minister would act otherwise than with and on the advice that is, in fact, given to him. I understand the worries that people may have, but I do not think that there is the slightest risk that the Minister will accept standards in this field that are too low.
One or two last points. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) raised the question of the very wide qualification of Regulation 3 (4). I agree with him that it is wide. Quite frankly, it is a safety valve. It is obviously possible to conceive of cases of people who because they have been living abroad or for other reasons, have not been able to obtain the particular qualifications that are suggested in the earlier Regulations, but who might yet be fully worthy of inclusion in the list. If such a list comes into being it will indeed be very small; there is no suggestion that it should be used other than as a means of ensuring that unfairness is not caused in the most exceptional cases that might well arise.
Let me sum up. I agree that it is undesirable that this sort of thing should be done by Regulations, but I submit that it is a good deal more desirable that it should be done by Regulations than by circular, which, after all, is the present position. Secondly, I would like to make it clear—and I am obliged to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East for putting the point—that, to me, this is, and must be, a temporary measure. I have by no means given up hope of complete success in this field: for, although I do not know what final form of groupings will come about, I do know that some of these bodies have obvious affinities and some may eventually come

together and achieve statutory registration.
As I have said, I am setting up the working party which will do everything possible to bring about a successful solution to this dilemma. But I think hon. Members will agree from what I have said that standards which are too low will not be accepted. I have spoken chiefly about the physiotherapists, but the same things could be said in the other fields. There should be no fear on that point, and I should like to quote from a leading article in the "British Medical Journal" of 6th February, 1954, where, in the last few lines, it is stated that "There is now undoubtedly an opportunity for the Minister to achieve a piece of constructive statesmanship which will bring the position of medical auxiliaries into line with the other professions in the National Health Service."
That is what I should like to achieve, and I would emphasise that I think it is a great pity if we decide to divide on the issue tonight because that Division would not be understood outside this House; or, perhaps I should say, it would not be understood correctly. I regard this as a temporary measure. That is the first point, and secondly, I will do my best in trying to reach a final solution to this difficult problem. Thirdly, in the question of consideration of standards, I will first be guided by the findings of the Cope Committees and will then act on the very best advice available to me.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In order to re-assure the Minister and to relieve the suffering of some of his hon. Friends who may have no concern with this matter, may I say that we do not intend to divide the House, and that they may, therefore, go home?

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I will be very brief in what I have to say. I should like to speak of one group of medical auxiliaries only, and that is the chiropodists. I should declare an interest, although not a financial one, because I happen to be a patron of the Joint Council of Chiropodists. That is one of the two organisations which cater for these medical auxiliaries, but in the representations before the Committee presided over by Sir Zachary Cope which dealt with chiropody, only one of these


two organisations was represented. That one was the Society of Chiropodists, and that Society decided to make hay while the sun shone; for, in the Report, these words occur:
The examinations sponsored by the Society of Chiropodists for students from schools it recognises provide an adequate test for chiropodists wishing to be employed in the National Health Service … We are not satisfied that the qualifications offered by other organisations provide an adequate criterion of competence for employment in the National Health Service.
A few pages earlier one reads:
Students who pass the first provisional examination of the Society of Chiropodists are required immediately to apply for membership.
Therefore, what this Report does is to provide a completely closed shop for the Society of Chiropodists. I congratulate the Minister most heartily on not having walked into that trap.
Although about half of the members of each of the two societies have passed the qualifying examination of the society to which they belong, the other half, approximately, in each case have never passed any examination at all, although they are members of one of the two bodies and may have been working in their profession for many years.
What is going to happen to those individuals? This is not clear, at least as far as I am concerned, because under these Regulations the Minister takes power to put on the list of those to be employed individuals whose names are
included in a List kept by the Minister of persons not qualified in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this regulation, who have satisfied him that their training and experience are adequate for employment as members of that class.
I may have misheard the right hon. Gentleman, but I did not hear him explain, as I should like to have done, how he will prepare that list and what will be the qualifications that he will require a person to have before putting him on that list. Quite clearly, there are individuals who in many cases have been in the profession for years, and who are, perhaps, among the most distinguished members of these various branches. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give very careful consideration to the preparation of that list, because I feel sure that on it he will wish to put a good many people who have never passed the

examination in chiropody of either of the two bodies to which I have referred.
One word about the general question of medical auxiliaries. I realise the difficulty of the Minister because new varieties are constantly cropping up. There are now the electro-encephalogists —if that is the right term—those who not being medical men deal with the electro-encephalograph which is used a great deal in psychiatric departments today. Then there are the orthoptists who I do not think are included either.
I suggest to the Minister that there are certain classes which are ripe for registration in the same way that nurses and dentists and others, who years ago we might have called medical auxiliaries, are registered. I suggest that chiropodists and physiotherapists should come into that class, and I think that legislation should be prepared for the registration and proper training in the future of these two bodies. As their qualifications and duties become more definite they also, I believe, will rank for registration by special legislation.
I wish to end by saying that the statement of the Minister has cleared up a good many of my doubts, but that there still remains a doubt in my mind regarding what is meant by paragraph (4) of Regulation 3.

10.55 p.m.

Miss Irene Ward: I should like first to say that I am a member of the Council of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists. I think I ought to say to the House that they were not anxious for a Prayer to be tabled against these Regulations, though I am bound to say that when the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) moved the Prayer in the terms in which he did, I think everyone in the House would agree that it has been a most useful debate. I am certain that the various bodies who compose the medical auxiliaries mentioned in the Regulations will be grateful for the opportunity that has been given to hear both the speech made by the hon. Member and that made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. So far, so good.
I wanted to make it quite clear that the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists were not desirous of having a Prayer put down against the Regulations. But that


does not mean to say that they have not extremely strong opinions. I felt it only right that I should briefly state what I believe to be their case. They are, as are most of us—and I think my right hon. Friend also confirmed it as his view —not in agreement with government by regulation. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear what his dilemma was, but that does not detract from the feeling that government by regulation is not a very appropriate way of proceeding. Also, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists are opposed to the powers taken by the Minister to lay down standards.
If I may, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decision to set up a working party. I think that was a most valuable suggestion which went a very long way to reconciling the body I represent to the decision to introduce the Regulations. But we do feel that it is not right or wise for the future that the Minister, or any Minister, should take power to set standards. Of course, over a very long period of years—and I am speaking only for the physiotherapists, because I have no knowledge of the attitude of the other bodies covered by the Regulations—the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists, starting as long ago as 1895, have been building up a standard of practice for physiotherapy which is invaluable to those who use the service. Throughout the country they have got their teaching schools attached, in many cases, to teaching hospitals, and they do feel that they have established a very high standard. Their only concern at the present time is that the maintenance of this high standard, in the interests of the patients especially, shall be adequately safeguarded and maintained.
There is just one other point we should like to make in this connection, and this was touched on by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer). It is not only that dangers to patients may arise from treatment which is not given by fully-qualified persons, but that one can waste both time and money and not produce either efficient or economical treatment by employing people who are not fully qualified. The object of the Chartered Society is to ensure that standards are maintained. I am sure that will be the wish of everyone.
My right hon. Friend made a most admirable case. I say that with, of course, the reservations I have just made. He found himself in a very difficult position, I think. He told us who his advisers were —men of high distinction and ability. However, I think it would have been more helpful if my right hon. Friend had decided also to seek the advice of members of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, who would be in a position to add advice to that which my right hon. Friend seeks from Departmental advisers. I hope he will be able in some way or another to consult the fully qualified physiotherapists and other medical auxiliaries representing the various groups we are discussing, because that will show that my right hon. Friend himself realises that the medical auxiliaries of all sections have been working to establish a standard which is in the interests of their patients.
I regret having to make this point, but I think it wise to do so, because I have had many dealings with the Minister and the Department. When discussing questions of this kind, full of complication and difficulty, it would be helpful, and would create confidence in his policy, if he were at an early stage to meet the branches of the medical auxiliaries concerned. It may be that he has met all the other auxiliaries, but he knows it took me some considerable time to get him to meet a deputation of the Chartered Society.
We in this country believe in progressing by consultation and co-operation. I have had a long experience of the Ministry of Health, longer, perhaps, I may say with all modesty, than my right hon. Friend, though in a lesser capacity. There have been occasions, dating back to prewar times, when the nursing profession and other professions have had some difficulty in establishing their right of access to the Minister. I hope that in the future we shall have no further cause for suggesting that a little closer co-operation and consultation between the Department and those who are seeking to serve the National Health Service ought to be forthcoming.
I should like my right hon. Friend to give us some idea of when he will set up the working party, of its composition, and of how long he expects it will be before he receives its report. This debate has


been most useful. If it gives confidence to those outside it will have done nothing but good.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: These are very proper and timely Regulations. I would convey to the Minister my personal thanks for the very careful and objective way in which he dealt with the difficulties with which he was beset over this matter. I raised the question as far back as 15th March, 1953, and I know that subsequently considerable negotiations ensued. These Regulations are a just result of the facts the Minister ascertained through those negotiations. I must criticise certain observations made in the course of his speech by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop). A good deal has been said, indeed it has occupied the bulk of this debate, about the Chartered Society, as though it possessed some magic wand which it waved over its patients and proceedings, and as though no other organisation entered into the picture. That is not right. Indeed, it is a very wrong view.
The criticism which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East made was, in my submission, made without the exercise of due judgment, and must have been based upon inadequate information. I say this advisedly, because I do not think it is right for anyone to belittle an organisation unless one has the fullest information on which to justify that course. It is serious to strike at the livelihood of anyone; and in the House of Commons it is wrong to throw doubt upon the competence of people who are members of a certain organisation as regards their fitness for the work they are doing unless to do so can be justified to the hilt. I am alluding to what was said by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East about the Physiotherapists Association. There it was obvious that the hon. Gentleman was not only ill-informed but mis-informed, otherwise he could not have made the observations he did.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I only want to explain that I did not attack this body. I was scrupulously careful not to do so. I pointed out the difference in standards, which I think they themselves accept, and explained the anxieties which I think were held generally about the outcome of this

matter, which the Minister has largely dispelled.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The hon. Gentleman has made matters worse by repeating what he said, which was incorrect and unjustified. The standard of qualifications required by the Physiotherapists Association is certainly already high, but in these Regulations the Minister has put on; them an added obligation, a further qualification, in order that there can be no doubt about the competency and reliability of their work. I say that it was because of a misunderstanding of the real facts and because of misinformation or bad information, that this Prayer was put down.
Let me indicate what the obligation of a member of the Physiotherapists Association is before he can qualify for membership. It is true there is a reference in the regulations to three months, but it is interesting to note that that is governed in any case by the very first words which state "shall have passed the qualifying examination." So in any case the protection is there, because the qualifying examination has to be of a standard of which the Minister approves. My hon. Friend ought to have informed himself on this, and it is not fair to indicate that the standard is merely a three months' one. My hon. Friend will find on inquiry that the three months' training under the regulations is not three months' training and nothing more, but that it has to be followed by three years' hospital training and that two examinations have to be passed after that. First of all, there is a Forces examination, and then the open examination of the Association before membership can be obtained.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I think it is two years' training in hospital.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Under the regulations it is two years, but the Association insists on three years. So it is a complete misrepresentation to suggest that training is limited to three months.

Mrs. Eveline Hill: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us where members of the Association train? What is its training school?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The Association has got a proper system of education and students are attached to hospitals for


training. In any case, that is not a question for me but for the Minister, because he would not have accepted this unless he was satisfied about it.
I regret that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East committed himself to a statement which was wrong without making the most careful inquiries first. I hope it will go out to the public that no one is allowed to become a member of the Physiotherapists Association, or to practise physiotherapy, unless toe is absolutely competent and proficient to do so—equally competent and proficient as a member of any other association.
I want to thank the Minister once again, because he has, by the Regulations we are discussing, undoubtedly removed many unjust cases connected with ex-Service men. It should also be remembered that most of the members of the Physiotherapists Association are ex-Service men, and I think it is a very poor reward for the service they have rendered their country that, without any foundation at all, anyone should come to the House and belittle the work they are doing.

11.14 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I would claim to be as earnest as any Member in upholding the rights and dignities of ex-Service men, but it does not seem that the fact of serving in the Armed Forces necessarily qualifies a person for particular professions. I should be surprised if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), who is a barrister, as I am, would consider that serving gallantly and with distinction in the Armed Forces necessarily qualifies a man to plead in the courts of Great Britain, without reading law and eating the dinners at the Inns of Court, as he and I did. I should be surprised if attendance at a court three months after passing an examination would seem to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to the Bar Council as adequate, by comparison with the generally recognised standards in the profession. To say that they could then go into the courts and plead for three years and thus learn how to do it, is not the same thing as saying that they are qualified to do it.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: After three years they would then have had experience, but it is two years, according to the Regulations.

Sir I. Fraser: The Minister is proposing to call them "physiotherapists" after three months. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, is he not? I thought he said that.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The point is that, as far as the Physiotherapy Association is concerned, they must not only have a minimum period of three months but in addition have two years, presumably of satisfactory service in a hospital.

Sir I. Fraser: Then the Minister is not going to call them "physiotherapists" after three months? Do we understand each other? Or is he?

Mr. Macleod: I do not understand this point at all, I am not calling them anything at all. All I am saying is that if they have these particular qualifications a responsible hospital body or a local authority may appoint them.

Sir I. Fraser: It does not seem important to the Minister what he calls them. That is part of my complaint. My right hon. Friend is in a difficulty. I do not want to prolong this debate unduly or embarrass my right hon. Friend, but these are questions of importance which I bring forward most sincerely and which I ask him to attend to.
He himself said that what he proposed to do would be like choosing people from one of a number of universities, but would he choose people from universities who had not been there for two years and probably for three years, before they got their degree? If a graduate was required, could he find one from some university after three months. In the United States if you had a couple of guineas in Louisville, you could become a "Kentucky Colonel." My right hon. Friend cannot sustain this argument about "any university," but only about one that is properly recognised.
It shocks me very much to think that he is going to regard three months as adequate for taking one of these persons into a hospital and recognising him as a physiotherapist. If he said he would recognise them as apprentices, or students, or unskilled persons under tuition, it would be a different matter, but that is not what he said.
My reason for raising this matter is that there are in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland some 300 blind persons, two-fifths of them blinded soldiers, sailors and airmen, and the other three-fifths blind civilians, all of whom, after passing severe literary and educational examinations, go to the school which is recognised for the purpose and sit for the examination of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists. They have all sat for this examination and they passed with distinction. Some hon. Members have spoken as if this profession of physiotherapy were not of very much importance; but it is.
These persons treat fractures very soon after they occur. They treat all kinds of medical and surgical conditions. They must be extremely skilful if they are not to do harm to their patients. Although they work under the direction of and after diagnosis by doctors, they normally treat patients on their own. It is a shocking thought to me that the Minister will put on a level with the persons in whom I am interested, and who have been three years learning anatomy and physiology, studying very hard to reach a high standard of technical efficiency and knowledge, of a particular subject, persons who have done three months' training in a school which apparently does not exist, and who, I assume, for the following two years will be operating in hospitals and learning something about it.

Mr. Macleod: Perhaps I had better make the point clear. My hon. Friend has completely misunderstood the First Schedule. In so far as the Physiotherapists Association is concerned, it is not a question of having a minimum period of training, whether it be three months or three years, and then doing two years before being called physiotherapists. Before being employed they must have two qualifications; they must have passed the examination, studied a course, whether of three months or three years, arid must already have served two years in an existing hospital which already will have been a services hospital outside the National Health Service. It is not a case of taking somebody else in.

Sir I. Fraser: Does my right hon. Friend believe that on one of Her Majesty's ships or at Gibraltar, under

the aegis of the Royal Army Medical Corps or the Naval surgeons, it is credible that a sick berth attendant could possibly attain the skill which my friends, although blind, or perhaps because they are blind, have secured after three years of highly specialised training? I know that in a battle a sick berth attendant can undertake an operation, but it does not follow that he can become a surgeon on leaving the Navy. I realise that there are a number of these persons who served during the war and got into the service, and I have no doubt they have done many years of skilled work in hospitals and in their jobs.
It is a good English tradition that when a profession is closed or a register established those who are doing the work are recognised. It was done with the dentists, and it will be done if another profession is closed, and thereafter only persons who have reached the highest standards should be admitted. I am in favour of giving recognition to all those who are now in, and are doing good work and of admitting persons who have analogous qualifications in other countries, especially the Commonwealth. We want reciprocity. We are not in favour of admitting persons whose standards are not comparable to the best.
It is for that reason that I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that he will give the widest possible terms of reference to those experts he asks to advise him about this matter, and will not, for example, ask them to consider whether less skilled persons could do less responsible work in hospitals, but that they will find some kind of comparable standard between the scale that can be accepted, and which he seems to favour, and that which the Chartered Society favours. I wonder if my right hon. Friend knows about these examinations in anatomy, physiology and the rest? It seems incredible to me that he could be making these proposals—but he is very busy and I suppose that he does not know.
If this body of persons were not merely 300 blind persons, or a few thousand men and women associated with a body called the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, auxiliaries subordinate to the medical profession and not widely known, but were instead the Electrical Trades Union, or the doctors, the lawyers or the


boilermakers—or any other group of persons who have a special skill—is it to be supposed for one moment that they would allow the Minister of Health of any party to proceed to dilute their skill in the manner now proposed? To make journeymen of persons who have hardly had a proper apprenticeship? Of course they would not. It is only because these are small, defenceless—though extremely useful—people that the Minister can be contemplating this highhanded action.
I ask him seriously to consider that he will for all time be lowering the standard of one of the most important of our medical auxiliary services, built up so painstakingly by the Chartered Society over the years; that he will be acting detrimentally, not only to my 300-odd blinded people who so ably carry out this most valuable work, but to all the other members of this Society, which has such a very high standard.
If I have appeared a little cross with my right hon. Friend, let me say that I am most grateful to him, and to previous Ministers of Health, for the consideration which they have given to these blind people, who are employed on level terms throughout the Health Service, and who also have private practices of their own in which they thrive and do well—where they carry out this valuable healing service to their own great benefit and to the enormous benefit of their patients.

11.27 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead: My only excuse for prolonging the debate at this very late hour is that the subject is of great importance to the professions involved, and of very considerable importance to the Health Service. I wish to suggest, not the approach of the National Health Service—which is the approach which we have so far been making—but the approach of the professions with which this set of Regulations is concerned.
Before doing that, I should like to follow the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lons-dale (Sir I. Fraser) about the position of the Physiotherapists Association in the First Schedule. I believe there is a misunderstanding there which it may still be possible for my right hon. Friend to clear up. The hon. and learned Mem-

ber for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), in his spirited defence of this Association, did not make clear what ought to be understood by the House— that at the moment the Association has no training school. No doubt, under the stimulus of these Regulations, it will do something to revise its training and bring it into better form.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: They have, of course, a system of training and have been holding an examination over the years.

Sir H. Linstead: I was making a differentiation between a system of training and a standard of examination.
It is against this background, and these words in column 2 of the First Schedule, that I think some misunderstanding has arisen. On page 3 of the Regulation, in column (2), referring to the Physiotherapists Association, it is stated that
…after attending a full-time day course of training in physiotherapy of not less than three months duration and working thereafter as a full-time physiotherapist in a hospital for not less than two years.
It is because of these words that some members of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists feel that somebody, after three months' training, will go into a hospital, not as a student, but as a physiotherapist. I think that the First Schedule applies only to existing practitioners and that nobody who is a student will be "picked up" by that Schedule but by the later powers which the Minister has under paragraph (3) of the Regulation. But there is this misunderstanding, and I hope the Minister can explain it.
I believe the Minister is entirely justified in bringing these Regulations before the House in the interests of the professions themselves—which are still in a formative stage of development. Even under the stimulus of the Cope Report they could not agree about their future; but under the stimulus of these Regulations, and with the help of the working party, the Minister may be able to do what the bodies themselves would wish to see done but have not had the coherence to do; and what, I feel, hon. Members on both sides of this House want to see done, and that is the substitution of the registration of these bodies not by Regulation, but by Statute. Of course, I realise that it may be difficult to get


time for a Registration Bill; but, if the working party can come to a series of recommendations which are agreed, it should be possible, by good will—not only on the part of the Minister, which I know is there—to get a Bill drafted. Possibly the Private Member's procedure might be a means by which such a Measure could reach the Statute Book.
But these Regulations point the way along which agreement may be found. It is clear that there is one group of these auxiliaries, represented by the physiotherapists and the remedial gymnasts, who are of one mind; and it may well be that they can be brought together in one registration scheme. Under another Act of Parliament it may be that the almoners and the psychiatric social workers can be brought together and, by way of a generality, I would say that I hope this can be done by way of some registration board acting as a buffer between the Minister and the profession. As he says, the Minister should not be in the position of functioning as a registering body. There should be a buffer between. But under a registration board the professions could be left with their own freedom in setting educational and professional standards, and could become recognised as completely fully-fledged professions.
I hope, therefore, that these Regulations will be temporary and that by good will on the part of the Minister they can be replaced by Statutory Regulations. If that can be done, then these Regulations will have served a very good purpose in applying a stimulus where it is still needed.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: With the leave of the House, I will reply to one or two of the points raised. First, with regard to the comments made about Regulation 3 (4), I wish to say that it is not intended in any way that this list shall become an umbrella—if a list can become an umbrella—for those people who cannot qualify under any other Act It is only for the very rarest case that it is possible to imagine that somebody would be entitled to submit their name to me either independently or through an association and to have it put on the list.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Miss Ward) raised points about the working party. All I can say is that

it will be appointed as soon as possible, and I would not like to guess when it will produce an answer. For 18 months the different bodies and my Department have mulled over the Cope Report without results.
As I have said, I think that these Regulations have brought us nearer to a solution by the mere fact of their imposing an answer that everybody recognises not to be wholly desirable. I think, therefore, that in the future the consultations will have a sense of urgency which they have not had before. All I can say is that I hope they will produce results as soon as possible.
With regard to the question raised about pay and whether it was possible that bodies might be encouraged to engage auxiliaries at other rates of pay, it is true that a differential exists at the moment. But, presumably, if in the future new bodies ever achieved the status of the existing ones, that differential would disappear. The matter of pay is, of course, essentially one for the Whitley organisation.
The main point about which I want to say a word tonight was, in fact, very well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead). I do not want to enter into any argument between the Chartered Society and the Association. Obviously, I am not holding a brief for either party. My aim is to get the best people into the National Health Service, and to be certain that no unfairness is caused by the operation of any arbitrary law.
My hon. Friend the Member for More-cambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) really misunderstood the First Schedule exactly in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney indicated. The clue to it are the words in paragraph 3 (2) that
he satisfied on the thirty-first day of March,1954.
Those are the key words. It is not a question of the future. The position is that if on that day somebody is employed in a hospital within the National Health Service, then he is accepted.
The second qualification is that it must be somebody who on 31st March, 1954, has the qualifications in the First Schedule, that is to say, in the cases with which we have been particularly concerned tonight, and who has taken an


examination, full-time course of training, whatever length it may have been, and has thereafter—before of course, 31st March, 1954—spent not less than two years as a full-time physiotherapist in a hospital, and not as a sick bay attendant as my hon. Friend indicated. Therefore, the position is that it is only for those people who are either in post on that day or who could be in post if they chose to apply.
As far as the future is concerned, I have made it clear, and I again do so now, that the fact that a body is put down as an appropriate body in the Second Schedule does not mean that I shall necessarily approve their examination or their courses of instruction. That is a matter for the future and will be taken only on the advice of such people as those to whom I referred in my earlier speech.

Sir I. Fraser: I and my hon. Friends have no objection to Regulations 1 and 2 coming in, and my right hon. Friend's assurance that he will not let persons such as we have been talking about come in in the future goes a very long way towards satisfying us.

Mr. Macleod: I am afraid that is not quite what I said. I said that it would not be assumed that because a body appeared in the Second Schedule they were automatically going to be approved. The inclusion in the Schedule merely means that I think those bodies have a right to put forward to me and my advisers their course of training, and their methods of examinations, and to give me the information I shall require about all their methods of training, on which I alone, on advice, of course, can base the final decision after 1st April.
I do agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney that these Regulations point the way to what we want. It is not the answer; I know it is not, and I have not pretended that it is. But it is the best possible answer a Minister could produce at the moment, and, with all its

faults, I think it possibly has within it the seeds of the solution.

Mr. Hastings: What about the large number of chiropodists, about half the membership of the two associations, who have been in practice for many years, who have never taken any examination at all? They were in practice; the societies were formed; they joined the societies, and some of these are the most respected members of the profession. Are they included in No. 4, the list kept by the Minister? If not, how can they get their names included in such a list?

Mr. Macleod: The answer to that is not that they are included, but that they are not excluded. As far as the First Schedule is concerned, that depends on passing the qualifying examination of the two bodies. As far as the Second Schedule is concerned, that is in the future, after 1st April, and depends on my approval of the methods of the two bodies. If there are such persons, who are deeply experienced in this field, but who have not yet taken the appropriate examinations, it is open to them to apply to me in due course to be recognised on the list under Subsection (4).

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I think we all feel that there has been a most useful debate here this evening on this subject which, if we had not put down this Prayer, we could not have had, owing to the procedure of this House. I think both the members of all the professional bodies concerned, and the public outside, will be glad to have had the assurances that the Minister has given, which, I think, have gone a long way to meeting some of the anxieties that they may have had in the past. As we in this House must be chiefly concerned with the welfare of the patients in the hospitals who are to be treated by members of these various auxiliary bodies, and because the Minister expresses his own desire to establish, as soon as possible, some form of registration authority, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

RAINFALL (RESEARCH EXPERIMENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Vosper.]

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Air for coming to answer this Adjournment debate. I hope he will regard it as a preliminary to the debate on the Air Estimates that will probably take place next week. I am asking for increased research into weather modification.
Ever since I went to the Air Ministry in May, 1946, and became Chairman of the Meteorological Committee I have been interested in this subject. It used to be called "rain making" but now is called "weather modification," which is probably the more scientific term, and one which the "boffins" currently like, as also do the commercial users. By chance, after I left the Air Ministry and went to the Home Office I was asked to answer Questions in this House on behalf of the Lord President of the Council, and that meant answering Questions about the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I took the opportunity while I was at the Home Office of finding out what the D.S.I.R. was doing in keeping an eye on research into weather modification. So far as I could discover, it was doing very little.
In June last year I put a Question to my successor the Parliamentary Secretary who answered Questions on behalf of the Lord President, asking what the D.S.I.R. was doing, and he said that development abroad was closely followed. Unfortunately—it was inevitable, I suppose, at Question time—the musical hall jokes about rain-making became uppermost in hon. Members minds and the Minister was able to ride off on questions about making rain to produce a sticky wicket at Trent Bridge—or wherever the particular Test was then being played. We got no further.
This month I tried to find a Minister who would receive a deputation so that I could discuss what research was being done into weather modification. The has been the ground-to-air approach. One Minister who had previously answered

for D.S.I.R. said he was no longer dealing with the subject. I was told that the Met. Office had taken it over, so I was referred to the Air Ministry. I make no complaint about that. I have every respect and, indeed, affection for the Air Ministry and the Met. Office, and under its new and able Director I am sure the Met. Office is the best office to have responsibility for this.
However, it is not merely a matter of keeping an eye on weather modification. I am asking for direct Government interest in it. I am asking for a special committee to be in charge of it, on the lines of the committee President Eisenhower has set up. It is an advisory committee to study the past and present results and future potentialities of weather modification. It is to make interim reports and will not report finally until 1956. The interesting fact about its composition is that it includes not only "boffins" but consumers. It includes men interested in agriculture and aviation and so on. I am told that Mr. Lewis Douglas, the former U.S. Ambassador here, is on it. He has among his many interests very large farms in the State of Arizona.
The fact that President Eisenhower has set up this committee is surely enough to dispel any illusion that this rain making is some music-hall joke. He is a practical soldier turned politician, not just a crank. They have had five or six years' commercial experience of this in the United States. For instance, the experience of the waterworks at Dallas in Texas. I read an article in the Water Works Magazine, an American publication, which describes the experience of Dallas. Elsewhere in the States, for instance in Arizona, where Mr. Lewis Douglas and his neighbours have had commercial orders for several years for weather modification, there has also been success. The yardstick has been set by the consumer, and payment has been by results. Naturally, the President has something to go on when he says that he would like to find out more about it.
I understand that the most successful method so far used has not been the method talked and written about only a few years ago, namely, dropping particles on to particular clouds. Rather it method, and others may have been developed, uses a large number of coke


furnaces, some mobile, some fixed. An up-current is caused, and in it silver iodide particles are raised not into a particular cloud, but into a whole "weather situation." Rain falls in the target area.
Here we come to a problem. The target area is big. One cannot make the rain fall into a particular swimming bath or field. To deal with these matters in a large continent like North America is obviously different from dealing with them in a small continent like Europe. Yet, even in Europe there has been commercial experience of rain-making by this method, again on a payment-by-results basis. In Spain, in the last 15 months, it has been carried out for hydroelectric companies. Payment has been by results, the yardstick being set by the consumer, the hydro-electric companies. Work of one kind or another has been carried on in Italy. I do not know much of the details, but I believe that the method about which I have been talking has been used in Southern Italy, and more recently in Northern Italy. In the Eastern Mediterranean, in Israel, work is also being done.
The purpose of my Adjournment debate is to ask for a committee to research into weather modification. In a debate limited by the clock I can give only some of my reasons. First, I want to know whether it is not right that we should kill the music-hall joke type of approach to weather modification. Second, I want to know whether it is not right that we should kill the idea that this lush green country has too much rain. We all know there is too little sun, but that does not mean that there is too much rain. It may be that if, over the years, our scientists are able to modify the weather we shall be able to have heavier falls when there is rain, and in the intervals have more sunshine. That is what I want to find out in the course of the next 20 or 30 years. If we are to find it out, more research must be started.
The third point I want investigated is whether it can be the answer to the country's falling water table. I am sure that people do not realise that if the present rate of consumption continues to rise many towns, especially on the dry side of the country—the East coast— and even London, are going to suffer

water shortage, and of course the countryside too.
Fourthly, what about our defence services in this? We must not forget our geographical position. We live on the edge of the Atlantic, and a vast amount of the rain that goes on to North-Western Europe comes from the Atlantic across the British Isles. It is terrible to contemplate—although it is no more terrible than the atomic bomb —depriving our European neighbours of rain in war for military purposes. But it is something which it is the duty of a Government concerned with the defence of the country to look into. I would like this committee to see what form of research could be undertaken on that line.
Fifthly, I would like the Government, on the basis of the findings of this committee, to begin to consider the international consequences, both legal and economic, of weather modification in the small continent in which we live. As members of the Council of Europe we have an obligation to deal as friends with the countries of the continent of Europe, and although it will be many years before any practical problem arises we should look into the future now. Perhaps we should have to come to a form of international control. Certainly—and perhaps it is all too obvious from what I have said—we need more study and research. We know little about the potentialities of weather modification.

11.57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) has raised an interesting and an unusual subject. There is no doubt that extra water supplies are needed at certain times of the year and in certain parts of the country. There are increasing demands for water for domestic and industrial purposes, and greater agricultural yields could be produced if water was available during periods of droughts. I understand that experimental work has shown that the general run of farm crops in South-East England would benefit from irrigation in at least five years out of 10. In the driest area around the lower Thames Estuary they would benefit in nine years out of 10. The real question we are now considering is whether a useful amount of rain


can be artificially produced to help these problems, and to make other problems of water storage, distribution and irrigation more manageable.
Let me first deal with the theoretical possibilities—and I emphasise the word theoretical—of producing rain on occasions when no rain would fall naturally. Obviously rain must fall from a cloud, and as far as I know there is no question or suggestion that clouds themselves can be artificially produced. We must therefore have a cloud to start with—indeed a procession of clouds— because one cloud only would produce nothing but a shower. The small drops of water which make up a cloud, unless of course the clouds are high enough to be made up of ice crystals, are normally supported by upward currents of air, and when rain falls what happens is that the drops of rain in the cloud have grown big enough to overcome the upward currents of air that support them and they fall to the ground. In cold conditions they may grow around a nucleus of ice crystals. Sometimes they grow by small drops of water colliding with each other and combining into large drops. Therefore rain-making technique is a matter of stimulating the growth of large drops of water by introducing various substances into the clouds.
The hon. Member has touched on various methods of achieving this. The best-known methods are by dropping pellets of solid carbon-dioxide from aircraft, or by introducing silver iodide crystals into a cloud or by one means or another, by spraying large drops of water into a cloud, or by introducing other matter which might form large drops of water by absorption. There is a lot of evidence that some of these methods may occasionally produce a shower of rain which otherwise might not have fallen.
Turning to the practical side of the problem, the question is whether an economically useful amount of rain can be artificially produced. I have noted what the hon. Member has said about the successes in the United States and elsewhere, and I was particularly impressed that interest in this matter should be taken by so eminent a man as Mr. Lewis Douglas. We shall certainly study all the information we can get on this matter with the greatest interest.
But there is rather more to it than that. At the risk of being thought elementary, I would explain that from the point of view of rain-making there are four different kinds of weather. There is the day when rain falls naturally and needs no artificial stimulation. We all know this kind of day. Then there is the day when there are no clouds in the sky. I do not know of anyone who is capable of doing anything about that. Then there is the day when the clouds are too thin to give any useful amount of rain, even if they could be tickled up and encouraged to do their best. Finally there is the day when the clouds are thick enough and extensive enough to give a useful amount of rain but do not do so naturally.
The practical side of the question is therefore limited to this last type of day, and to days of this type when rain is needed on the ground for one purpose or another. The practical question is not only limited in scope in this way but it must also take account of whether the cost of producing this available quantity of rain would be worth while; and if so, whether we could make it fall where it is needed. The hon. Gentleman has pointed to the difficulty of this aspect.
The Meteorological Office is studying reports of rain-making activities all over the world. I understand that a good deal of the material comes from commercial firms who are interested in rainmaking and cannot perhaps be regarded as wholly disinterested. I am advised that the available scientific evidence on the practical side of the matter is not completely convincing. We are always up against the difficulty that it is impossible to prove that the rain which has fallen after treatment would not have fallen anyway.

Mr. de Freitas: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. If hard-headed businessmen are willing to pay good money, and to have payment by results, they must have been convinced that there is something in it, and that is why I think there is ground for more research.

Mr. Ward: I agree. That is why I said that I was impressed that so eminent a man as Mr. Douglas should have been taking an interest in it. Nevertheless the hon. Gentleman has taken my point. He asked what action the Government were taking in the matter, and suggested a


committee, on a basis similar to that which has been set up in the United States by the President, should be set up to examine it. I understand that rainmaking came before the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy in 1951, but the Council were then of the opinion that there was no call for the expenditure of effort on large-scale field trials without further research. Since then, however, research on cloud rainfall problems has been carried out by the Meteorological Office, and some practical experiments have been made by the Meteorological Research Flight of the Royal Air Force, but more with the object of increasing our knowledge rather than of trying to produce rain.
My noble Friend is also advised on this matter by the Meteorological Research Committee which is representative of expert meteorological knowledge in this country, and is presided over by Sir David Brunt, who is of course a world famous meteorologist. At the instance of the Director of the Meteorological Office rain-making, and the present state of our knowledge on the matter, will come before the Physical Sub-committee of the Meteorological Research Committee soon, so that our future course of action can be reconsidered.
We are, perhaps fortunately, not in the same position as the United States where large-scale commercial rain-making operations have shown it desirable to appoint a special committee. At the present stage of events in this country I think the right course of action is to leave the matter in the hands of the expert committee which already exists—namely the Meteorological Research Committee. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall watch the matter with the greatest interest as long as I am at the Air Ministry, and I am sure my noble Friend will feel as interested as I am in the subject.
I cannot leave the subject without referring briefly to the legal difficulties which I believe have already arisen in the United States in cases in which rain may have been artificially produced. There could be two grounds for complaint. A man could claim that he had

been rained on to his loss when he did not want rain, or another might claim that rain, which would have fallen on his property to his benefit, had been induced to fall elsewhere. These are problems which need careful consideration, and all I can say now is that the rain-makers of the future will be well advised to suspend their activities at the time of the Old Trafford Test Match. I understand that Old Trafford is more susceptible in these matters than Trent Bridge. As I say, I have carefully noted the points made by the hon. Member, including the defence aspect which he raised. I can assure him that we shall continue our studies with the greatest interest.

Mr. de Freitas: As there is an odd minute or two left, perhaps, with the leave of the House, I can make two points. I am well aware of the legal difficulties. As the hon. Gentleman has said, legislation has been begun in some of the States in America, and also, I think there has been suggested Federal legislation. That is one reason why we should now start studying the subject.
What I was sorry to hear was the hon. Gentleman saying that this subject came before these scientific committees in 1951. He did not say in 1952 or 1953, but in 1951. It came before those committees then, because, I think, of something I did. I got a very much more important member of the Government interested at that time, and it is discouraging I find to hear the hon. Gentleman refer not to 1952 or 1953 but only to 1951. I hope, if I raise this matter from these benches next year—if we are still in opposition; we may be on those benches by then— that it can be said that it came before these committees in 1954.
However, even if the hon. Gentleman cannot give me the indications for which I asked, at least he gave me some indication that he and his noble Friend will give it further.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.